USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

The effects of a leadership and diversity awareness program on adolescents' attitudes and behavior

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The effects of a leadership and diversity awareness program on adolescents' attitudes and behavior
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Lyons, Eileen M
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Adolescent
Diversity acceptance
Social competence
Social responsibility
Community involvement
Anytown
Dissertations, Academic -- Interdisciplinary Education -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: A nonequivalent control-group longitudinal design was used to examine the effects of a leadership and diversity awareness program on adolescents knowledge of discriminatory terms, acceptance of diversity, social competence, feelings of social responsibility, and community involvement. Adolescents who did and did not attend a leadership and diversity awareness program (Anytown) completed three analogous surveys in a 12-month period. Similarly, parents of adolescents who did and did not attend the program reported on their childs social competence and community involvement. Adolescents who attended the program reported greater increases in their social competence, acceptance of diversity, feelings of social responsibility, and community involvement when compared to the control group. A comparison of females and males who attended the program revealed females scored higher than males in the areas of social competence, diversity acceptance, and social responsibility.Differences also were observed between the race/ethnic groups of program participants. The Hispanic/Latino and Nonwhite/Other race/ethnic groups reported higher diversity acceptance scores than the adolescents in the Black race/ethnic group. Additionally, parents of Anytown participants reported higher community involvement than parents of adolescents who had yet to attend the program. Discussion centers around the results and implications of these findings as well as the need to incorporate effective prejudice reduction strategies into diversity awareness programs.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2005.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Eileen M. Lyons.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 160 pages.
General Note:
Includes vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001709537
oclc - 68961888
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0001374
usfldc handle - e14.1374
System ID:
SFS0025694:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001709537
003 fts
005 20060614125355.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 060518s2005 flua sbm s000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001374
035
(OCoLC)68961888
SFE0001374
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
LB1555 (Online)
1 100
Lyons, Eileen M.
4 245
The effects of a leadership and diversity awareness program on adolescents' attitudes and behavior
h [electronic resource] /
by Eileen M. Lyons.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
b University of South Florida,
2005.
502
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2005.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 160 pages.
Includes vita.
520
ABSTRACT: A nonequivalent control-group longitudinal design was used to examine the effects of a leadership and diversity awareness program on adolescents knowledge of discriminatory terms, acceptance of diversity, social competence, feelings of social responsibility, and community involvement. Adolescents who did and did not attend a leadership and diversity awareness program (Anytown) completed three analogous surveys in a 12-month period. Similarly, parents of adolescents who did and did not attend the program reported on their childs social competence and community involvement. Adolescents who attended the program reported greater increases in their social competence, acceptance of diversity, feelings of social responsibility, and community involvement when compared to the control group. A comparison of females and males who attended the program revealed females scored higher than males in the areas of social competence, diversity acceptance, and social responsibility.Differences also were observed between the race/ethnic groups of program participants. The Hispanic/Latino and Nonwhite/Other race/ethnic groups reported higher diversity acceptance scores than the adolescents in the Black race/ethnic group. Additionally, parents of Anytown participants reported higher community involvement than parents of adolescents who had yet to attend the program. Discussion centers around the results and implications of these findings as well as the need to incorporate effective prejudice reduction strategies into diversity awareness programs.
590
Adviser: George Batsche, Ed.D.
653
Adolescent.
Diversity acceptance.
Social competence.
Social responsibility.
Community involvement.
Anytown.
0 690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Interdisciplinary Education
Doctoral.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.1374



PAGE 1

The Effects Of A Leadership And Diversity Awareness Program On Adolescents' Attitudes And Behaviors by Eileen M. Lyons A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Psychological and Social Foundations College of Education University of South Florida Major Professor: George Batsche, Ed.D. H. Roy Kaplan, Ph.D. John Ferron, Ph.D. Kathy Bradley-Klug, Ph.D. Richard Weinberg, Ph.D. Date of Approval: November 9, 2005 Keywords: adolescent, diversity acceptance, social competence, social responsibility, community involvement, anytown Copyright 2005, Eileen M. Lyons

PAGE 2

i Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................ ....iv List of Figures ............................................................................................................... .....vi Abstract ...................................................................................................................... ......vii Chapter One: Introduction...................................................................................................1 Causes of Prejudice..................................................................................................2 Prejudice Reduction Programs.................................................................................3 Rationale for the Study............................................................................................8 Purpose of the Study................................................................................................8 Research Hypotheses.............................................................................................11 Chapter Two: Review of the Literature.............................................................................13 Effects of Discrimination.......................................................................................16 Victims.......................................................................................................17 Perpetrators................................................................................................20 Causes of Prejudice................................................................................................25 Prejudice Reduction Progra ms – Common Components.......................................29 Intergroup Contact.....................................................................................29 Reduce Conflict.........................................................................................30 Multicultural and Anti-Racist Education Programs...................................30 Cooperative Learning.................................................................................31 Prejudice Reduction Empathy Training.....................................................32 Community Involvement...........................................................................32 Outcomes of Prejudice Reduction Programs.........................................................33 Desegregation............................................................................................33 Multicultural Education and Anti-Racist Education..................................36 Cooperative Learning.................................................................................39 Prejudice Reduction Empathy Training.....................................................42 Community Involvement...........................................................................44 Summary....................................................................................................46 Anytown.................................................................................................................47 Research Hypotheses.............................................................................................50 Chapter Three: Method......................................................................................................52 Research Design.....................................................................................................52

PAGE 3

ii Participants.............................................................................................................52 Anytown Participants / Experimental Group (Exp)...................................53 Control Group – Adolescents.....................................................................53 Experimental Group – Parents (Exp-P).....................................................56 Control Group – (Cont-P)..........................................................................56 Chi-Square Analyses..................................................................................56 Treatment...............................................................................................................58 Instruments.............................................................................................................59 Definitions of Discriminatory Terms.........................................................60 Youth Diversity Acceptance Scale............................................................60 Youth Social Competence Scale................................................................61 Youth Social Responsibility Scale.............................................................62 Youth Inventory of Involvement...............................................................62 Parental Perceptions of Adolescent’s Social Competence Questionnaire.............................................................................................63 Youth Inventory of Involvement – Parent Perceptions..............................64 Data Collection Procedures....................................................................................65 Institutional Approval................................................................................65 Confidentiality...........................................................................................65 Anytown Program Sessions.......................................................................65 Recruitment and Data Collection Procedures for Anytown/ Experimental Group Participants...................................................65 Anytown Preand Postsurvey Data Collection.........................................66 Anytown Group Follow-Up Survey Data Collection................................67 Recruitment and Data Collection for Control Group Participants.............67 Control Group: Pre-, Post-, and Follow-Up Data Collection.........70 Summary....................................................................................................70 Chapter Four: Results ........................................................................................................ 72 Hypotheses.............................................................................................................72 Hypothesis One..........................................................................................72 Assumptions...................................................................................74 Multivariate Analyses....................................................................76 Follow-Up Analyses......................................................................78 Hypothesis Two.........................................................................................83 Assumptions...................................................................................84 Multivariate Analyses....................................................................87 Follow-Up Analyses......................................................................88 Hypotheses Three.......................................................................................90 Assumptions...................................................................................92 Multivariate and Follow-Up Analyses...........................................92 Hypothesis Four.........................................................................................95 Assumptions...................................................................................96 Multivariate and Follow-Up Analyses...........................................97

PAGE 4

iii Chapter Five: Discussion...................................................................................................99 Discussion of Results.............................................................................................99 Hypothesis One..........................................................................................99 Hypothesis Two.......................................................................................100 Hypothesis Three.....................................................................................101 Hypothesis Four.......................................................................................102 Implications..........................................................................................................103 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research.....................................107 Contributions to the Literature.............................................................................110 References..................................................................................................................... ...110 Appendices..................................................................................................................... ..123 Appendix A: Anytown Daily Schedule...............................................................124 Appendix B: Anytown Program Objectives........................................................126 Appendix C: Preand Follow-Up Survey ...........................................................127 Appendix D: Postsurvey......................................................................................131 Appendix E: Parent Survey..................................................................................134 Appendix F: Definitions of Discriminatory Terms..............................................137 Appendix G: Youth Diversity Acceptance Scale.................................................138 Appendix H: Youth Social Competence Scale....................................................139 Appendix I: Youth Social Responsibility Scale...................................................140 Appendix J: Youth Inve ntory of Involvement.....................................................142 Appendix K: Parental Perceptions of Adolescent’s Social Competence Questionnaire.................................................................................144 Appendix L: Youth Inventory of Involvement....................................................145 Appendix M: Experimental Group Assent Letter................................................147 Appendix N: Control Group Assent Letter..........................................................149

PAGE 5

iv List of Tables Table 1. Motivation for Hate Cr ime Incidents from 1996 to 2003....................................16 Table 2. A Summary of the Causes of Prejudice...............................................................29 Table 3. Experimental and Control Group – Adolescent Demographi c Characteristics...54 Table 4. Chi-Square Analyses of Experime ntal Group Demographic Characteristics......55 Table 5. Chi-Square Analyses of Experi mental and Control Group Demographic Characteristics......................................................................................................55 Table 6. Experimental and Control Group – Parent Demographic Characteristics...........57 Table 7. Chi-Square Analyses of Experi mental and Control Group Demographic Characteristics......................................................................................................58 Table 8. Measures Administered at Pre-, Post-, and Follow-Up.......................................64 Table 9. Response Rates for Each Phase of Data Collection.............................................68 Table 10. Overview of Dates Part icipants Completed Surveys.........................................68 Table 11. Descriptive Statis tics for Measures by Anyt own and Control Group over Time...................................................................................................................73 Table 12. Hypothesis One: Shapiro-Wilk Tests of Univariate Normality.........................75 Table 13. Multivariate Analyses of Anytow n Participation with the Dependent Variables (DDT, YSCS, YDAS, YSRS)...........................................................77 Table 14. Multivariate Analyses of Anytown Participation with the YII..........................77 Table 15. The Univariate Effects of In teractions on the DDT, YSCS, YDAS, and YSRS...........................................................................................................78 Table 16. Repeated Measures Contrasts An alyzing the Significan ce of the Change Scores between the Anytown and Control Group over Time............................79

PAGE 6

v Table 17. Anytown Group Participants’ De mographic Characteristics by Gender...........85 Table 18. Chi-Square Analyses of the Anytown Groups’ Demographic Characteristics....................................................................................................86 Table 19. Anytown Group Pre-, Post-, and Follow-up YSCS, YDAS, and YSRS Scores......................................................................................................86 Table 20. Hypothesis Two: Shapiro-Wilk Tests of Univariate Normality........................87 Table 21. The Effects of Gender on the De pendent Variables: YSCS, YDAS, YSRS.....88 Table 22. The Effects of Gender on the Dependent Variable: YII....................................88 Table 23. Tests of Between S ubject Contrasts for Gender................................................89 Table 24. Descriptive Statis tics for YSCS and YDAS for Anytown Participants by Race/Ethnicity....................................................................................................91 Table 25. Multivariate Analyses of the Re lationship between Race/Ethnicity on the YSRS and YDAS over Time.............................................................................93 Table 26. Descriptive Statistic s for the Parent Pre-, Post-, and Follow-Up Surveys.........97

PAGE 7

vi List of Figures Figure 1. Knowledge of Discrimi natory Terms by Group over Time.......................80 Figure 2. Youth Social Compet ence Scale by Group over Time..............................80 Figure 3. Youth Diversity Acceptance Scale by Group over Time...........................81 Figure 4. Youth Inventory of Involvement by Group over Time..............................81 Figure 5. Youth Social Responsib ility Scale by Group over Time...........................82 Figure 6. Anytown Group Estimated Marg inal Means by Gender and Measure......89 Figure 7. Anytown Participants’ YSRS Scores by Race/Ethnicity...........................94 Figure 8. Anytown Participants’ YDAS Scores by Race/Ethnicity..........................94 Figure 9. Parents’ Perceptions of A nytown and Control Group Adolescents’ Community Involvement on the PP-YII....................................................98

PAGE 8

vii The Effects of a Leadership and Diversity Awareness Program on Adolescents’ Attitudes and Behaviors Eileen M. Lyons ABSTRACT A nonequivalent control-gr oup longitudinal design was used to examine the effects of a leadership and diversity awar eness program on adoles cents’ knowledge of discriminatory terms, acceptance of diversit y, social competence, feelings of social responsibility, and community involvement. Adolescents w ho did and did not attend a leadership and diversity awareness progr am (Anytown) completed three analogous surveys in a 12-month period. Similarly, pare nts of adolescents who did and did not attend the program reported on their child ’s social competence and community involvement. Adolescents who attended the program repor ted greater increases in their social competence, acceptance of diversity, feelings of social responsibility, and community involvement when compared to the contro l group. A comparison of females and males who attended the program revealed females sc ored higher than male s in the areas of social competence, diversity acceptance, and social responsibility. Differences also were observed between the race/ethnic groups of program participants. The Hispanic/Latino

PAGE 9

viii and Nonwhite/Other race/ethnic groups repor ted higher diversity acceptance scores than the adolescents in the Black race/ethni c group. Additionally, parents of Anytown participants reported higher community involvement than pa rents of adolescents who had yet to attend the program. Disc ussion centers around the results and implications of these findings as well as the need to incorporate effective prejudice reduction strategies into diversity awareness programs.

PAGE 10

1 Chapter One Introduction Throughout the 20th century in the United States of America, major legislative decisions were made to combat prejudice and di scrimination in an effort to create a more inclusive and accepting society. Examples of these initiatives include the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Americans w ith Disabilities Act, and Affirmative Action legislation. However, intolera nce continues to permeate Amer ican society causing a wide range of social problems for victims and offenders. Victims of discrimination report experiencing emotional and physical abuse fr om others, feelings of isolation, identity confusion, and retaliatory anger (Brans combe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999; Broman, Mavaddat, & Hsu, 2000). At times, the negative im pact and stress associated with social exclusion leads to life debilitating symptoms such as anxiety and depression (Cozzarelli & Karafa, 1998). In contrast, the bias and contempt disp layed by perpetrators of discrimination indicate their unwillingness to accept others creates a differe nt, yet personally relevant, set of social problems. Racists usually do not report that their method of thinking or behaving is personally limiting (Oskamp, 2000). However, prejudiced individuals have been found to passively avoid members of disliked groups (Stephan & Stephan, 2000), engage in discriminatory hiring practices (Hebl, Foster, Mannix, & Dovidio, 2002; Stewart & Perlow, 2002), destroy others’ pr operty, and use emotional and/or physical

PAGE 11

2 abuse to maintain feelings of superior ity (Byers & Crider, 2002; Oskamp, 2000). Although perpetrators of discrimination may f eel justified and successful because they harm members of groups they dislike, they are likely to encounter conflicts in the workplace, the community, and within the legal system. In 2003, over seven-thousand individuals were arrested for committing over eight-thousand cr imes attributed to racial, religious, sexual orientation, et hnic, and disability intole rance (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004). These findings indicated intoleran ce negatively impacts all members of a maturing pluralistic society. Causes of Prejudice Hamilton and Trolier (1986) indicated that it was necessary to understand the causes of prejudice when designing interventi ons to reduce its nega tive effects. Seminal works conducted by DuBois (1969), Allport (1954), Duckitt (1992), and Stephan and Stephan (2000) improve our understanding of the complex factors which contribute to intergroup intolerance. In the early 1900’s, the first African American to earn a doctorate degree from Harvard University, W. E. B. DuBois (1969), proposed that cultural differences were the primary cause of pr ejudice. It was his c ontention that groups wielding power, often due to a majority accepta nce of norms, traditions, values, beliefs, or appearance, directed repeated punitive soci al interactions towards groups who differed from these norms in some way. In the mid1900’s, a renowned European American social psychologist, also from Harvard, Gordon All port (1954), explained th at minority groups were discriminated against because ma jority group members accepted erroneous generalizations or stereotypes about th e minority group. Although DuBois did and

PAGE 12

3 Allport did not address how group status was initially establis hed, they both agreed that rejection of others based on differences was the fundamental cause of prejudice. Historically, cultural differences, nega tive interactions, and erroneous belief systems divided American society. Dominant groups engaged in and attempted to justify their inhumane, hostile, and discriminatory treatment of others, which ranged from intimidation to lynching. Contemporary social scientists refined and added to the existing theories (Duckitt, 1992; Stephan & Stepha n, 2000). Similar to Allport and DuBois, Duckitt asserted that intolerance stems from evolutionary predispositions, acceptance of specific intergroup attitudes, and patterns of intergroup contact. However, he also proposed that the mechanisms of social infl uence, such as the educational setting and media, contribute to prejudice and discrimi nation. Stephan and Stephan added that realistic threats to th e welfare and survival of groups, either perceptions of or actual threat, lead to retaliatory prejudice and discrimination. Th e intricate intraand intergroup causal factors described above were used frequently in the design and implementation of programs used to re duce the occurrence of prejudice and discrimination. Prejudice Reduction Programs Many prejudice reduction programs were de veloped and applied to children and adolescents. Racially integrated schoo ling, multicultural education, anti-racism education, empathy training, and cooperative learning were used frequently. However, investigations of their efficacy are mixed. Ba sed largely on Allport’s (1954) theory that intergroup contact will incr ease acceptance of other groups research on racially

PAGE 13

4 integrated schooling demonstrated that Black students were more likely to report positive attitude changes, whereas White students we re more likely to report negative changes (Stephan, 1999). However, in a study done by Ha llinan and Teixeira (1987) adolescents were more likely to report cross-race friendships if they were in smaller classes, academic groups, or participated in athl etics together. In Hallinan and Teixeira’s (1987) study the support from authority figures for intergroup contact and increased opportunity to form personal relationships contributed to the in creased number of cross-race friendships. Therefore, integrating students without o ffering support and opportunities for friendship may have no or a negative imp act on acceptance of diversity. The goals of multicultural education are to improve students’ knowledge of and attitudes towards other groups as well as prom ote cultural diversity and equal opportunity (Banks, 1995; Bennett, 1990). It also is expect ed that students will improve their ability to use adept social skills wh en interacting with members of other groups (Sleeter, 1996.) Unfortunately, the few studies that were conducted demonstrated that multi-cultural education consistently fell short of attaini ng these goals. Exposure to multicultural texts and movies did not impact positively childre n or adolescents’ at titudes towards other groups (Fuhr, 1996; Litcher, Johnson, & Ry an, 1973; Morelli & Spencer, 2000; Slavin & Madden, 1979; Weigel, Wiser, & Cook, 1975; Yawkey, 1973). However, a multicultural education program that included discussi ons about race as well as exposure to multicultural texts resulted in positive att itude change amongst adolescents (Slavin & Madden, 1979). Although this program was desc ribed as multicultural education, it more

PAGE 14

5 aptly describes the components of an anti-ra cist education program (Bullard, 1996; Dei, 1996; Heller & Hawkins, 1994). Anti-racist education programs include multicultural curricula and discussion groups. The goals of the anti-racist discussi on groups are to learn how racism affects society, improves one’s own racial identity, evokes empathy for others, and builds the confidence and skills needed to fight prejudi ce. An evaluation of seven empirical studies of anti-racist education indicated that adoles cents were more likely to benefit from this approach than adults. However, the age of the students and the length of the program varied making it difficult to conclude whic h program factors cont ributed to a greater acceptance of diversity (McGregor, 1993). Analys is of the sparse multicultural and antiracist education outcome evaluations s uggested that support and opportunities for intergroup contact as well as discussion gr oups are critical co mponents of programs designed to increase acceptance of diversity. Prejudice reduction empathy training progr ams use discussion groups as well as perspective taking strategies to improve accep tance of diversity. The goal of empathy training is to experience discrimination from another’s point of view, acknowledge the painful feelings that occur, and through gu ilt motivation, change bi ased attitudes and discriminatory behavior. A well known exam ple of empathy training is the Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes discrimination simulation devised by Jane Elliot (Peters, 1971). The students in this experiment lear ned what it felt like to be a target of discrimination, and, in the follow-up discussion group, the teacher linked the students’ experience to the treatment of Black Americans. The few re plication studies that were conducted

PAGE 15

6 contributed additional support to the effectiveness of th is methodology (Breckheimer & Nelson, 1976; Weiner & Wright, 1973). More recent investigations found improvements in children’s confidence to stand up to discrimination (Sla by, 1999) and college students’ acceptance of others (Byrnes & Kiger, 1992) after participating in different empathy training experiences. It appear s that the perspective taking and cognitive dissonance that occur as a result of prejudice reduction empa thy training evoke the needed response to reorganize one’s schema for another group a nd view people as humans rather than as members of categorical groups. Empathy trai ning, although the studies are sparse and based largely on self-report, appeared to be a much more effective strategy to reduce prejudice than simply integrating students without support or through passive exposure to multicultural curriculum materials. Two other strategies that demonstrated an important relationship with increased acceptance of diversity were coopera tive learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1981, 1982, 1985, 1989; Lopez-Reyna, 1997; Slavin & Coop er, 1999) and community service (Yates, 1999; Yates & Youniss, 1996). A lthough the primary goal of these strategies was not increased acceptance of diversity, many studi es reported intergroup relationships were affected. Cooperative learning involves small groups of students working together to achieve a common goal. Regardless of demogra phic characteristics, students were likely to report improved relationships with cla ssmates following participation in these activities (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Lop ez & Reyna, 1997; Slavin & Cooper, 1999). However, Johnson and Johnson (2000) explai ned that positive c ontact and cooperation

PAGE 16

7 occurred as a result of the group structure and the teachers’ ability to effectively respond to conflict. They emphasized the impor tance of understanding that students’ preconceived ideas could negatively imp act the cooperative nature of the group. Therefore, as the results of racially integrated schooli ng indicate, proximity does not equate to acceptance. Cooperative learning pr ograms that structured intergroup contact and created an atmosphere of interdepe ndence for survival, or passing, improved the likelihood that positiv e and caring relationships developed. In a few studies, participating in community service projects also was related to improved acceptance of diversity. Research ers indicated that adolescents who participated in such projects experienced increased contact with members of groups different from their own (e.g., different races, homeless indi viduals, senior citizens). It was hypothesized that this c ontact evoked the empathy needed to revise ingrained stereotypes, provide opportuni ties to build personalized relationships, and increase interest in social issues through moral development (Hamilton & Fenzel, 1988; Hart & Fegley, 1995; Moore & Allen, 1996; Yates 1999; Yates & Youniss, 1996). However, the effects of participating in community servic e projects indicated th ere was a consistent relationship between participat ion, increased sense of civic duty and moral development (Hamilton & Fenzel, 1988; Yates, 1999; Yate s & Youniss, 1996) and an inconsistent relationship with acceptance of divers ity (Niemi, Hepburn, & Chapman, 2000). The adolescents who demonstrated an increase in acceptance of others participated in group discussions regarding their ow n experiences and confronted their own biases (Yates, 1999; Yates & Youniss, 1996.) Whereas, a nationa l review of adolescents’ participation

PAGE 17

8 in community service projects indicated that acceptance of diversity did not improve. However, this outcome was not planned for nor an emphasized component of the experience (Niemi, Hepburn, & Chapman, 2000). Although social activism promotes change and growth, it is important to re member that activism in the absence of humanitarian acceptance has led to genocide in places such as N azi Germany, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and Cambodia. Rationale for the Study Ideal diversity acceptance programs contai n many, if not all, of the following components: desegregation/intergroup cont act, multicultural e ducation, anti-racism education, empathy training, discussion gr oups, cooperative learning, and community service. The prejudice reduction programs containing only one or two of these components, such as desegregation and multic ultural education had little or no effect on increased acceptance of others. The ideal prog ram integrates the many different prejudice reduction methods. For example, a program that plans for intergroup contact, uses multicultural curricula, includes discussion groups, and engages participants in discrimination simulation activities is more likely to achieve success. However, prior to this study, a program that included all of these components was not investigated. Purpose of the Study Since the 1950’s, the Nati onal Conference for Commun ity and Justice (NCCJ), founded as the National Confer ence of Christians and Jews, has sponsored a week long residential diversity awareness program ca lled Anytown. The program was designed to create leaders who possess the sk ills necessary to fight prej udice and discrimination while

PAGE 18

9 promoting acceptance of others and comm unity involvement. The Anytown program includes all of the compone nts researchers recommend to fight prejudice and discrimination. Adolescents, who are referred to as dele gates, attend the Anytown program for one full week. They are exposed to new culture s, racial/ethnic groups, cultures, skills, and ideas by volunteers who believe in the importance of fighting bias and bigotry. Upon arrival at Anytown, the staff separate ex isting friendship networks into different dormitories and groups so each delegate will encounter members from diverse backgrounds. Staff members also play a cruc ial role in developing dialogue between newly acquainted adolescents by modeli ng and supporting intergroup contact. The adolescents are referred to as delegates to promote an understanding that they are representing their schools and communities. The daily schedu le remains consistent, but the small group discussions, experiential work shops, and activity based evening programs differ dependent upon the daily theme and planne d activities. Daily th emes include know yourself, know your friends, know your fam ily, separation, and know your community. Workshop examples include increasing awar eness of one’s own racial identity, personally experiencing disabili ty and discrimination, learning about society and media’s influence on gender stereotypes, and discus sing the benefits of social activism. The Anytown program integrates multiple prejudice reduction methods. First, intergroup contact is planned for and clearly meets Allport’ s (1954) four criteria (e.g., equal status, cooperative activities, persona lized relationships, and support for contact from authority.) Second, multicultural curric ulum materials are included and openly

PAGE 19

10 discussed in a cooperative learning format. Th ird, participants expe rience discrimination during simulation activities. Fina lly, participants learn the bene fits of social activism and are encouraged to become involved in their communities. The goals of the Anytown program include improving the adolescents’ ability to explain the concepts of prejudice as well as increase their (a) acceptance of diversity, (b) social responsibility, (c ) social competence, and (d) community involvement (NCCJ, 2002). In August of 2001, Anytown was highlighted as an exemplary program in the U.S. Department of Education’s Community U pdate Newsletter (Ashby, 2001). An evaluation conducted by Ohm (1987) and reports from th e NCCJ to funding sources indicated that the participants’ feelings of social responsibility, community involvement, and knowledge of discriminatory terms improved (NCCJ, 1999, 2000, 2001). The previous investigations were limited in several ways. First, the findings were based on data collected excl usively from Anytown particip ants. A control group was not used. Second, follow-up data only were colle cted immediately following exposure to the program. Therefore, it is uncle ar if any changes persist ove r time. Third, the data were aggregated for analyses. However, it is importa nt to investigate the affects of the program on participants according to gender and race. Fi nally, the previous studies did not analyze the effects of participating in the Anytown program on acceptance of diversity or social competence, two important program goals. Due to these evaluation constraints, it is unclear if these changes are a result of exposure to Anyt own and, if so, whether these changes persist over time. McWhiter, Paulch, and Ohm (1988) indicat ed that much of Anytown’s success is “based on testimonials, reports, and subjective accounts from

PAGE 20

11 people who have participated in the program ” (p. 122). A rigorous and methodologically sound evaluation of the outcomes of the A nytown experience was not previously available. However, for this study, information was gathered from Anytown participants, their parents, and a control group of adolescent s and their parents. The purposes of this study were to (a) evaluate the effectivene ss of the Anytown progr am by systematically analyzing the program objectives, and (b) prov ide additional data that can be used to modify the curriculum. Research Hypotheses 1. Adolescents who attend the Anytown dive rsity awareness program will report a statistically significant increase in their: a.) knowledge of discriminatory terms, b.) social competence, c.) acceptance of others, d.) feelings of social responsibility, and e.) community involvement when compared to a similar group of a dolescents who did not attend the program. 2. Females who attend the Anytown divers ity awareness program will report a greater increase in their: a.) social competence, b.) acceptance of others, c.) feelings of social responsibility, and

PAGE 21

12 d.) community involvement when compared to males who attended the program. 3. After attending the Anytown diversity awareness program, adolescents with different racial/ethnic backgrounds will be more similar in their: b.) acceptance of others, and c.) feelings of social responsibility. 4. Parents of adolescents who attend the Anytown diversity awareness program will report a significant increase in their percep tions of their children ’s: a.) social competence, and b.) community involvement, when compared to parents of a simila r group of adolescents who did not attend the program.

PAGE 22

13 Chapter Two Review of the Literature A common theory exists among social sc ientists who investigate the causes and effects of prejudice. Theorist s assert and research supports the following contention: the type of contact occurring am ong members of diverse groups largely influences the way members of these groups inte ract (Allport, 1954; DuBois 1969; Oskamp, 2000; Stephan & Stephan, 2000). However, inte rgroup contact is influenced by many societal factors. For example, over the past 100 years, the Unite d States government au thorized legislation that significantly altered the expectations for intergroup contact following the Civil War and again in the 1960’s. Despite the “fr ee” status that was bestowed upon Black Americans after the Civil War, discriminati on was rampant in the Southern confederate states. The Black Codes, Jim Crow laws, and inadequately enforced 14th and 15th amendments of the late 1800’s communicated to all that segregation was acceptable, intergroup contact was unnecessary, and separa te was equal. Mistre ating others because of dark skin pigmentation was a common practic e of the majority group that resulted in minor, if any, consequence. Mistreatment occurred in various forms. Physical intimidation was used at voting booths. Misrepresentation and demoralization of Black Americans as well as their culture occurred through the mass production of nega tive stereotyped medi a {(e.g., Lil’ Black Sambo, Birth of a Nation, (Griffith, 1915)}. Al so, murder of Blacks by Whites was not

PAGE 23

14 uncommon. Black individuals were murdered du ring episodes of individual White rage as well as during efforts to support the cause of White supremacist organizations like the Klu Klux Klan. During the same time period, with slowly increasing numbers from the 1900’s to the 1960’s, groups of Black and White Ameri cans as well as legislators and social activists from all backgrounds worked together to abolish the well established laws and practices that promoted segregation and di scrimination. In the 1960’s demonstrations and protests were held to recruit support for ever yone, regardless of skin color, to have equal access to resources. Their efforts were rewa rded with the Civil Rights Acts of 1964. However, despite the strides made by the Civil Rights Acts, its underlying principles drastically contradicted existing social practices in many states, communities, and neighborhoods. As mandated by law, separa te was no longer equal. Segregation was no longer acceptable. And, intergroup contact was now an expectation. As a result, both racial groups were unprepared for change in th e social stratification of the United States and contention between the groups was prevalent. An in depth historical revi ew of race relations in th e United States is beyond the scope of this chapter. However, the purpose of this example was to illustrate the societal battle that occurs when the status quo is challenged. Regardless of the type of discrimination that is present (e.g., racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) social debate, behavior, and laws are altered wh en inequality is challenged. Prior to and since the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, the goal of many organizations is to increase acceptance of dive rsity in the United States. One of these organizations, the

PAGE 24

15 National Coalition for Christians and Je ws, renamed the National Coalition for Community and Justice (NCCJ), was form ed in 1927. The primary goal of this organization is to reduce bias and bigotry and improve intergroup relations. The NCCJ was designed to promote social activism, provide opportunities for positive intergroup contact, and develop interventions to help youth across America increase their acceptance of diversity regardless of r acial, ethnic, or religious b ackground. Since the 1950’s, the NCCJ has sponsored a week long residen tial diversity awaren ess program called Anytown. It was designed to create leader s who possess the skills necessary to fight prejudice and discrimination while promo ting acceptance of others and community involvement. This chapter describes the causes and effects of discrimination as well as illustrates the importance of developing, implementing, and evaluating programs designed to decrease its occurrence in society. In the first section, th e effects of prejudice on victims and perpetrators are summarized. Ne xt, the multiple and interrelated causes of prejudice are examined from four well established theoretical perspectives. Third, the methods that theorists and researchers r ecommend to reduce prejudice are described. Fourth, actual prejudice/discrimination reduc tion programs and social activism programs are evaluated and the outcomes presente d. Next, the objectives and components of Anytown, the NCCJ sponsored diversity aw areness program, are reviewed. Since the components and goals of the Anytown progr am were aligned with the recommended strategies to reduce prejudice and discri mination while also increasing community involvement, an empirical investigation wa s warranted. It was predicted that the

PAGE 25

16 Anytown program increased adolescents’ knowledge of discrimination, social competence, acceptance of diversity, feelings of social responsibility and community involvement. Therefore the final section of this chapter describes the purpose of evaluating the Anytown program and the related research questions. Effects of Discrimination Since 1990, law enforcement agencies througho ut the United States have reported hate crimes to the Federal Bureau of Inve stigation (FBI) on a volunt eer basis. From 1996 to 2003, there was an average of 9,800 hate crime offenses each year with approximately 10,000 victims and 8,000 known offenders (retrieved August 20, 2005, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm). These statistics indicate intergroup to lerance is far from ideal. Further analyses of thes e data also revealed that so me minority groups are in the beginning stages of combating intolerance (See Table 1). Table 1 Motivation for Hate Crime Incidents from 1996 to 2003 Year Race Religion Sexual OrientationEthnicity Disability Number of Hate Crime Incidents Total Number of Offenses 1996 61.6 16.1 11.6 10.7 0.01 7462 8825 1997 58.5 17.2 13.8 10.4 0.1 9730 11451 1998 55.7 17.9 16.2 9.8 0.3 8063 9430 1999 54.5 18.0 16.7 10.5 0.3 7876 9301 2000 53.8 18.3 16.1 11.3 0.5 7755 9235 2001 44.9 18.8 14.3 21.6 0.4 8049 9861 2002 48.8 19.1 16.7 14.8 0.6 8759 10706 2003 51.3 18.0 16.5 13.7 0.4 7489 8715 Note. Reported as a Percent of the Total Number of Hate Crime Incidents For example, although the majority of hate crimes were racially motivated, there was a 10.3% decrease in the number of in cidents from 1996 (61.6%) to 2003 (51.3%).

PAGE 26

17 However, there were increases in the number of hate crime incidents related to sexual orientation (5% increase), religion (1.9% in crease), and ethnicity/national origin (3% increase). These data suggest that it is im portant to understand th e effect discrimination has on perpetrators as well as victims. As the following studies illustrate, the psychological, physical, and personal well-be ing of victims and perpetrators is compromised by prejudice and discrimination. Victims Several research studies analyzed the consequences of discrimination on its victims. These studies demonstrated th e negative effects discrimination had on psychological well-being (Branscombe, Sc hmitt, & Harvey, 1999; Broman, Vavaddat, & Hsu, 2000; Cozzarelli & Karafa, 1998). First, Cozzarelli and Karafa (1998) discovered that individuals who perceived themselves as culturally estranged were more likely to report psychological problems. College students (n = 157, mean age = 19.4) completed a battery of measures to assess cultural estran gement, social conformity, and psychological well-being. The Cultural Estrange ment Inventory (CEI) is a 10 -item, 7-point Likert Scale questionnaire that yields a “misfit” factor score and an “atypical” factor score. Students who obtained high scores on the “misfit” fact or of the CEI were more likely to report decreased self-esteem, a less satisfying life, greater anxiet y, and greater depression than those who did not score high on th is factor. It was s uggested that these individuals did not strongly identify with any cu lture group and therefore experienced the psychological difficulties often associated with social aliena tion. As expected, the students who did not score high on either factor or only on the “at ypical” factor were connected with a culture

PAGE 27

18 group and less likely to experience feelings of social alienation. This study illustrates that rejection, whether actual or perceived, leads to psychological difficulties. In a related study, Branscombe, Schmitt, and Harvey (1999) investigated the attribution style of African-Americans in poten tially discriminatory situations. They also analyzed the relationship between a.) African-Americans group identification, psychological well-being, and hostility towa rds Whites, and b.) at tribution style for discrimination. It was hypothesized that Af rican-Americans who attributed negative events to discrimination (stable and unc ontrollable) were more likely to report psychological difficulties and hostility toward s Whites. However, it was predicted that the strength of ethnic group identification would mediate the effects of attributing negative events to discriminati on on psychological well-being. One-hundred and thirty-nine African-American s, ranging in age from 17 to 49 (mean age = 22) completed six surveys designed to assess attributions of prejudice in fictional situations, past expe riences with racial discrimi nation, hostility towards Whites, minority group identification, pe rsonal well-being, and coll ective well-being. Results of the structural equation modeling analys es supported these hypotheses. AfricanAmericans who reported past experience with discrimination and attributed fictional negative treatment to prejudice were belie ved to possess a stable and uncontrollable attribution style for discrimination. Respondent s who shared this attribution style for discrimination reported greater hostility toward s Whites than those who did not attribute negative events to discrimination. As predicte d, the strength of ethni c group identification mediated the effects of discriminatory attributions on psychological well-being.

PAGE 28

19 Respondents who possessed a negative attrib ution style and did not have strong group identification showed greater psychologica l problems. Whereas, African-Americans who identified with their ethnic group, despite a nega tive attribution style, were more likely to report positive well-being a nd psychological functioning. In a third study, Broman, Mavaddat, and Hsu (2000) stated, “Blacks who perceive that they have been the vict ims of discrimination suffer for it, (p. 176).” They interviewed 312 African American adults ranging in age from 18 to 94. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effects of di scrimination on mental health, determine how frequently discrimination occurred, and who was more lik ely to report its occurrence. Sixty percent of those surveyed experienced discriminati on within the past th ree years. The youngest age group (age 18 to 29) experienced discrimi nation more frequently than the eldest group (age 60 and older) (77% vs. 24%, respectively). Also, males experienced discrimination more than females. The e ffects of discrimination on these respondents indicated they experienced reduced feelings of control over their environment and higher levels of psychological distress. It also was important to consider how group responses to legislative initiatives designed to narrow the gap between the race s (e.g., affirmative action, the fair housing act, and use of quotas in higher education) contributed to continued division between groups. For example, two studies demonstrated that Blacks reported positive attitudes for such laws, whereas Whites’ attitudes were considerably less favorable (Kinder & Sanders, 1996; Schuman, Steeh, Bobo, & Krysan, 1997). As a result of these attitudes,

PAGE 29

20 Whites may voice unfair treatment, complain th e laws foster reverse discrimination, and, in turn, engage in in tolerant behaviors. These studies clearly illustrated that vict ims of discrimination experience negative psychological and interpers onal outcomes. Victims repor ted greater psychological distress such as increased anxiety and depr ession. Some victims also reported reduced feelings of control over their environmen t and a less satisfying life. Victims of discrimination may experience social alienati on, experience increased f eelings of hostility towards others, or increase identification with their own group. Although increased group identification was consider ed a protective factor that guarded against psychological problems, it also was clear that only iden tifying with one’s own group perpetuates the “us” vs. “them” attitude. This self-imposed division of social relations appears to decrease the desire for intergroup inte raction and perpetuates segregation. Perpetrators In contrast, the bias and contempt di splayed by perpetrators of discrimination indicate their unwillingness to accept others creates a differe nt, yet personally relevant, set of social problems. Racists usually do not report that their method of thinking or behaving is personally limiting (Oskamp, 2000). However, prejudiced individuals have been found to passively avoid members of disliked groups (Stephan & Stephan, 2000), engage in discriminatory hiring practices (Hebl, Foster, Mannix, & Dovidio, 2002; Stewart & Perlow, 2002), destroy others’ pr operty, and use emotional and/or physical abuse to maintain feelings of superior ity (Byers & Crider, 2002; Oskamp, 2000). Although perpetrators of discrimination may f eel justified and successful because they

PAGE 30

21 harm members of groups they dislike, they are likely to encounter conflicts in the workplace, the community, and within the legal system. On average, from 1996 to 2003, over eight-thousand individuals were arrested each year for committing crimes attributed to racial, religious, sexual orie ntation, ethnic, and disability intolerance. These findings demonstrate that intolerance continues to negatively impact all members of a maturing pluralistic society. The following studies descri be who is likely to discriminate, why it is likely to happen, and its effect on the perpetrators well-being. Byrnes and Kiger (1992) and Byers and Crider (2002) analyzed who was more likely to discriminate and why they engaged in these behaviors. Byrnes and Kiger (1992) developed a study to determine who was more likely to con front bias and discrimination dependent upon their gender and religious aff iliation. They surveyed White graduate and undergraduate male and female students (n=496) from a Western university who identified themselves as Mormon or some other religious affiliation. Respondents completed the Social Scenarios Scale (Byrne s & Kiger, 1988). The scale consists of 12 different scenarios involving a peer, a stranger, or an au thority figure behaving in a discriminatory manner towards a Black individual. The respondents chose from behaviors ranging from the most discriminato ry response (e.g., condoning the act) to the least discriminatory response (e.g., confronting the act). Results of the analysis of variance indicated that women and non-Mormons were more likely than men or Mormons to confront discriminatory acts committed by authority figures, strangers, and peers. Additionally, a ll groups were least likely to confront discriminatory acts done by peers and most lik ely to confront a stranger. Overall, men

PAGE 31

22 were significantly less likely to confront a peer who was engaged in discriminatory behavior than any other group. Based on the varying degree of resp onses (confront, ignore, condone) to discriminatory behavior, it is clear that the respondents recognized that discriminatory behavior was a form of mistreatment. However, it appeared that they did not believe it was their place to confront its occurrence, pa rticularly if personal repercussions could occur (e.g., confronting an aut hority figure or peers). The ha rsh reality of these findings suggested that the people surveyed were unlik ely to upset the power balance that existed between themselves and authority figures or fr iends in fear of losing status, position, or relationships. Despite the fact that White s report improved attitudes towards Blacks (Schuman, Steeh, Bobo, & Krysan, 1997), ma ny do not engage in behaviors to stop intolerance and discrimination. In sum, th is study suggested the perpetrators of discrimination (from an all White sample) were more likely to be male, possess a fundamentalist religious background, and condone discrimination done by friends and/or authority figures. Byers and Crider (2002) c onducted a study to assess th e common characteristics of discrimination perpetrators. They performe d a qualitative analysis of anti-Amish hate crime offenders to determine what factors cont ributed to their prejud ice and violent acts of discrimination. Anti-Amish discrimination, called Claping, refers to various types of direct assault on the Amish. It was discovered that the antecedents for Claping or violent crime against the Amish, which may possibly be generalized to other bias-motivated groups (e.g., KKK, neo-Nazi groups, anti-gay or ganizations), were categorized into three

PAGE 32

23 domains. First, the offenders were motivate d. Second, the targets of discrimination were present. Third, there was an absence of aut hority available to protect the targets. Eight White male subjects (aged 18 to 27) were interviewed separately to retrospectively discuss the details of crimes they had committed between the ages of 15 to 18. Motivation to harm, the first antecedent, was investigated and five common themes emerged from the subjects’ responses. Firs t, all subjects perc eived the Amish as “different.” Simply put, since the Amis h lived, acted, and looked different the respondents were motivated to commit acts of discrimination. Second, the subjects indicated that Claping was fun, exciting, and an effective method to alleviate boredom. In one respondent’s interview, he indicated that he did not like the Amish, but he engaged in Claping for the thrill of gett ing away with something. Th ird, many comments indicated that the Amish deserved the unfair treatment The offenders indicated their acts were justified. For example, one offender stated that the Amish “always thought they were smarter and it was like they had a cocky air,” (Byrnes & Crider, 2002, p. 125). Another offender stated they targeted specific Amis h individuals that had stolen money from a relative’s business. Therefore, their motivation to commit hate crimes also was related to retaliation and revenge for pers onally perceived or actually e xperienced unfair treatment. Somewhat related to feeling the Amish deserved the mistreatment; the fourth factor contributing to the respondents motivation was provocation. The respondents indicated that the Amish lifestyle created personal ha ssles (e.g., a horse and carriage slowing down the speed of traffic, horse manure left on the road). Therefore, responding with profanity, dusting (passing the carriage, spinning the car wheels, and spra ying dust all over the

PAGE 33

24 horse and passengers), or thro wing objects were explained as justifiable actions. Finally, the respondents reported that most of the Cl aping occurred predominantly with groups of male friends. Claping was perceived as a wa y to identify with the group, bond, and have a “good time.” The offenders explained many of the reas ons why the Amish were suitable targets for discrimination above and beyond why they were motivated to engage in discrimination. First of all, the Amish people were accessible. They shopped at the same stores, drove on the same streets, and atte nded the same schools. However, since the Amish believe that it is God’s responsibility to punish those who commit crimes, they do not use legal recourse to remedy problems. Th erefore, the offenders rarely experienced consequences for their behavior. The Amish di d not file charges. Due to the wide range of cultural differences (e.g., belief system, styl e of dress, mode of transportation, etc.) that existed between the Amish and the offe nders, the offenders perceived the Amish as inferior and viewed them as convenient, ea sy, and deserving targets of discrimination. Perpetrators of discrimination often deny that there are any personal consequences (Oskamp, 2000). However, research shows th at they experience social, community, and legal ramifications as a result of their willingne ss to engage in intolerant behaviors. White perpetrators are more likely to be males who adopt a fundamentalist belief system. Perpetrators often believe they are superior to their victim and derive motivation to harm from feelings of inconvenience, anger, reve nge, or simply boredom. Perpetrators also ensure that their victims are accessible and s upervision is minimal in order to carry out their hate crime.

PAGE 34

25 In sum, there are pervasive damaging effects on both victims and perpetrators following acts of discrimination. Targets of discrimination may experience life debilitating psychological symptoms, increase their covert and overt hostility towards others, and refuse to interact with memb ers of other groups. Eventually, targets of discrimination may also become perpetrators. Perpetrators engage in discrimination to alleviate boredom, maintain their feelings of superiority, obtain revenge, or demonstrate anger as a personal attack {e.g., I will beat you because you are ( part of any group ), and I think that is ( negative bias !)}. It is apparent that into lerance restrains society from achieving harmonious intergroup relationships. Ther efore, it is important to consider the various factors that contribute to the development of prejudice. Causes of Prejudice Oskamp (2000) and Hamilton and Trolier ( 1986) indicated that it was necessary to understand the multiple and interrelat ed causes of prejudice when designing interventions to reduce its negative effects. A brief re view of the seminal works conducted by DuBois (1969), Allport (1954), Duckitt (1992), and Stephan and Stephan (2000) provides an essential summary of the complex factors which contribute to intergroup intolerance. In the early 1900’s, W. E. B. DuBois (1969), proposed that cultural differences were the primary cause of prejudice. It wa s his contention that groups wielding power, often due to a majority acceptance of norms, traditions, values, beliefs, or appearance, directed repeated punitive social interac tions towards groups who differed from these norms in some way. Simply put, the major ity group exploited the minority group because

PAGE 35

26 of cultural differences. In the mid-1900’s, A llport (1954), explained that minority groups were discriminated against because ma jority group members accepted erroneous generalizations or stereotypes about th e minority group. Although DuBois did and Allport did not address how group status was initially establis hed, they both agreed that rejection of others based on differences was the fundamental cause of prejudice and discrimination. Contemporary social scientists refined a nd added to these theories (Duckitt, 1992; Stephan & Stephan, 2000). Similar to All port and DuBois, Duckitt asserted that intolerance stems from evolutionary predis positions, acceptance of specific intergroup attitudes, and patterns of inte rgroup contact. However, he also indicated that mechanisms of social influence such as laws, regulati ons, the media, the educational system, and employment industries largely influenced the occurrence of prejudice and discrimination. Stephan and Stephan (2000) proposed that various intergroup fears and threats were the major causes of prejudice. They clas sified these threats into the following four categories: realistic threats, symbolic threats, intergroup anxiety, and negative stereotypes. First, the actual or perceived belief that there is a threat to the welfare of one’s own group or ingroup is a re alistic threat that creates prejudiced feelings for the outgroup. Symbolic threats are threats to th e worldview of the ingroup. These threats have to do with differences in what is cons idered moral. For example, many Christians do not believe that homosexuality is morally right and actively rej ect these individuals. Where some would argue that this type of thinking is a form of prejudice (McConahay, 1986; Sears, 1988), Stephan and Stephan sugge st that individuals or groups whom

PAGE 36

27 perceive that their values are threatened is a cause of prejudice and can lead to discriminatory behavior towards indivi duals who do not share these values. Third, intergroup anxiety refers to the fear of interac ting with members of other groups. This fear can lead individuals or groups to avoid social interactions with members of other groups due to fear of emba rrassment or rejection. Also, if individuals adopt stereotypical beliefs about members of the other group, it is highly likely that they will look for behavior to confir m these beliefs rather than co ntradict an existing belief. Therefore, if individuals have repeated nega tive experiences or avoid interactions with members of other groups, then it is more li kely that these stereotypical beliefs will continue to influence interactions with me mbers of other groups (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). Negative stereotypes are the final causal factor of prejudice considered by Stephan and Stephan. Similar to Allport, Du Bois, and Duckitt’s contentions, negative stereotypes function to creat e feelings of conflict and hostility, which create an expectation for unpleasant encounters with me mbers of that group. Therefore, negative stereotypes can influence cogniti ve processes to create a nega tive anticipatory schema. If a group of White girls adopt the negative ster eotype that all Black men are dangerous, then they are more likely to avoid those situ ations or feel very uncomfortable during a social exchange with Black males. The interre lationships between these threats illustrate one way in which societal and personal factors can motivate prejudicial thinking. Ultimately, this thinking can serve the purpose of maintaining cohesive status with one’s

PAGE 37

28 own group while discriminating against memb ers of other groups (Stephan & Stephan, 2000). Prejudice is caused by multiple factors ranging from individual predisposition to institutionalized social policies and pract ices. Combining the unique aspects of each theory highlighted in this section reveals a comprehensive explanation of the interrelated causes of prejudice. The fear of differences cultural or symbolic provides the foundation for prejudicial feelings and discriminatory behavior to develo p. Negative stereotypes develop and are accepted by group members. A group perpetuates a superior status among themselves and acts in ways that expl oit, harm, condemn, and ultimately suppress the other group. This may occur overtly or covertly and create intergroup hostility. Often, individuals do not think about relations with members outside of their group and may be oblivious to their methods of intergroup cont act. However, patterns of intergroup contact are influenced by legislative bodies, social mechanisms of influence (e.g., the media, educational system, work place, ingroup), and ac tual or perceived threats to the welfare of the ingroup. Intergroup anxiety develops fr om the fear of contact with members of other groups and may perpetuate and reinfor ce negative attitudes, ingroup identification, and outgroup hostility. Based on these causal fa ctors, many interventions were developed and applied to children and adolescents to reduce the occurrence of prejudice and discrimination. (Please refer to Table 2 for a summary of the common causes of prejudice.)

PAGE 38

29 Table 2 – A Summary of the Causes of Prejudice. Cultural differences Imbalance of power Acceptance of negative stereotypes Patterns of intergroup contact Mechanisms of Social Influence Realistic threats Symbolic threats Intergroup anxiety Evolutionary predisposition Prejudice Reduction Progr ams – Common Components Oskamp (2000) explained that “most me thods of reducing prejudice share some common features, and they can be roughly cat egorized into behavior, cognitive, and motivational approaches. (p. 6)” Behavior al approaches involve planning for and improving intergroup contact. Cognitive approach es involve confron ting stereotypes and biases. And, motivational appr oaches involve encouraging ingroup members to confront their feelings of fear to d ecrease hostility towards outgroup members. Several different prejudice reduction methods based on these ap proaches as well as derived from the causes of prejudice involve a.) providing oppor tunities for intergr oup contact, b.) using various methods to reduce conflict, c.) multic ultural education and anti-racist education, d.) cooperative learning, e.) pr ejudice reduction empat hy training, and f.) participating in community involvement activities. This sec tion provides an overview of the components of these different approach es to prejudice reduction. Intergroup Contact Allport (1954) suggested th at an individual’s contact with members of an outgroup would result in decreased feelings of prejudice if optimal conditions existed. He stated that several criteria need ed to be met in order for this contact to have the desired

PAGE 39

30 effect. First, there must be an agreement th at the groups have equa l status. Second, they need to engage in an activity and work c ooperatively to achieve a common goal. Third, it is essential that a desire and willingness to get to know one anot her on a deeper level through personalized acquaintances is a part of the experience. Therefore, competition should not be part of the experience. Finall y, people in positions of power must support the contact. These guidelines are the underl ying characteristics of Contact Theory (Allport, 1954). Studies demonstrated that contact under these conditions effectively reduced prejudice (Brewer & Miller, 1984; Pettigrew, 1998, Ellison & Powers, 1994; Sigelman & Welch, 1993). Reduce Conflict Stephan and Stephan (2000) explained that realistic thr eats create intergroup fears and hostility. These threats manifest as nega tive attitudes, nega tive stereotypes, and intergroup anxiety. Thompson (1990) reported that employees reported positive changes in intergroup relations and attitudes followi ng intergroup negotiations that were designed to improve working relationships and productivi ty. It was theorized the equal distribution of power and the use of interactive problem -solving made it possibl e to reduce realistic conflict. Multicultural and Anti-Rac ist Education Programs Multicultural education emerged as an important method to educate children and promote diversity acceptance in America foll owing the Civil Rights Act (Sleeter, 1996). It relies heavily on exposing children to di versity through stories in reading textbooks, historical events in social studies, and presenting pict ures of people from various

PAGE 40

31 backgrounds throughout all of the textbooks. The goals of multicultura l education are to improve students’ knowledge of and attitude s towards other groups as well as promote cultural diversity, equal opportunity, and prid e of heritage (Banks, 1995; Bennett, 1990). It also is expected that students will impr ove their social skills when interacting with members of diverse groups (Sleeter, 1996). Anti-racist education programs and multicultural education programs use similar techniques and share similar goals. However, anti-racist education programs differ from multicultural education programs in that di scussion groups in addition to exposure to multicultural materials are used. The major goa l of anti-racist education programs is to “end racism in individuals and institutions or at least enable them to be less racist,” (Morrelli & Spencer, 2000 p.168). The discussi on groups are designe d to evoke empathy for others so the participants learn how racism affects soci ety from various perspectives. These groups are intended to improve the participants’ racial identity as well as teach them the skills necessary to fight prejudice (McGregor, 1993). Cooperative Learning The basic premise of cooperative learni ng is to educate students using small group activities (Cohen, 1994; Johnson & Johnson, 2000; Slavin, 1995a; 1995b). Customarily, groups are arranged to ensure various et hnic backgrounds and ability levels are represented. The goals of cooperative lear ning include improving academic outcomes and interpersonal relationships within cla ssrooms. Cooperative learning emphasizes supportive contact among group members a nd minimizes competition. Regardless of demographic characteristics, students were likely to report improve d relationships with

PAGE 41

32 classmates following participation in c ooperative learning acti vities (Cohen, 1994; Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Lopez & Renya, 1997; Slavin & Cooper, 1999). Prejudice Reduction Empathy Training The goal of prejudice reduction empathy tr aining is to experience discrimination from another’s point of view, acknowledge th e painful feelings that occur, and through guilt motivation, change biased attitudes and discriminatory behavior. This type of training may involve personally confronting inconsistent appl ication of values and/or experiencing discrimination through a simulation activity (Oskamp, 2000). Community Involvement The purpose of community invol vement is to provide servi ce to others in need of assistance. This assistance comes in vari ous forms and ranges from volunteering for the Red Cross to a preferred political party. Therefore, the effect s service has on its participants is as broad as the opportunities available. However, in attempt to narrow the scope, most service learning projects that ar e done in schools are intended to increase students’ moral and social development as we ll as increase their sense of civic duty (Yates, 1999). Through these experiences, civi c engagement increases intergroup contact and intends to evoke the empathy needed to revi se ingrained stereotypes. It also provides an opportunity for personalized acquainta nces that would not occur under other conditions. Community involveme nt experiences that empha size increased acceptance of diversity often include discussion groups th at help the participants explore their experiences, confront their biases, and reorganize their understanding of society

PAGE 42

33 (Hamilton & Fenzel, 1988; Hart & Fegle y, 1995; Moore & Alle n, 1996; Yates, 1999; Yates & Youniss, 1996). In sum, the prejudice reduction programs described above are designed to alter behaviors, cognitions, and ultimately the mo tivation to engage in discriminatory behaviors. However, the methods used to accomplish this similar goal vary. For example, multicultural education programs rely heavily on textbooks and instruction to reduce prejudice whereas cooperative learning fosters intergroup cont act as well as exposure to diverse curricula. In the next section, research is presente d that demonstrates how these strategies become more powerful and e ffective when they are integrated. Outcomes of Prejudice Reduction Programs This section describes the various e ffects prejudice reduc tion programs had on children and adolescents. The importance of strategically planning for intergroup interaction to avoid neutral or negative responding is highlighted. Desegregation Following the civil rights movement, de segregation was the most well known method used to increase intergroup contact among children and adolescents. Following Brown v. the Board of Education (Supp. 797 (1951), 347 U.S. 483 (1954, 349 U.S. 294 (1955), it was predicted that Whites and Bl acks’ attitudes toward s one another would improve and Blacks would report increased self -esteem. In an early examination of the effects of desegregation, Stepha n (1978) analyzed several studies and reported the results did not support the predicti ons. For Blacks, prejudice towa rds Whites decreased in six studies, did not change in one study, and increased in five studies. For Whites, prejudice

PAGE 43

34 towards Blacks decreased in two studies, did not change in five studies, and increased in eight studies. Additionally, the self-esteem of Black adolesce nts was actually higher than the self-esteem of White adol escents. These results suggest ed desegregation by itself was not the only factor influenci ng acceptance or self-esteem. Slavin and Madden (1979) analyzed diffe rent variables that occurred within a desegregated school. They hypothesized te acher training, multicultural education, heterogeneous grouping, and cooperative activ ities improved intergroup relations. They examined data at the school and individual level from 10th grade students. These data were collected by the Educational Testing Se rvice (ETS) and repres ented students in 51 schools (35 southern and 16 northern). At the school level, it was reported that teacher training and multicultural education had mini mal effects on Black and White students’ attitudes and behaviors. However, White students who participated in cooperative activities with Blacks and discussed race in class reported more favorable attitudes and had more intergroup friendships. Black st udents who conversed with Whites on the phone reported better race relations, but the ot her variables did not significantly affect attitudes, behavior, or inte rgroup friendship choices. At the individual level, for both racial groups, students who pa rticipated on a team or work ed with members of other races obviously reported greater interaction with members of the other group, but also more favorable attitudes towards the other group. Organization and individual characteristic s were analyzed to determine their effect on the formation of intergroup frie ndship choices (Hallina n & Teixeira, 1987). Sixteen teachers from different desegregated schools in north ern California, with at least

PAGE 44

35 a numerical minority group (Black or White) of three students, described the grouping procedures used in their class. Two hundred and sixty-one fourth through seventh grade students described their friends hip choices. Ability grouping had an inconsistent effect on cross race friendship selection. Whites in the same ability groups as Blacks were more likely to report a Black peer was their frie nd. However, Blacks in the same ability groups as Whites were more likely to report a Blac k, not a White, peer was their friend. Class size and proportion of Black students in the cl assroom also affected friendship choices. Students of either race in large classes, wh ere there are many same race peers, are less likely to make cross race friendship choices than students in small classes. Additionally, the greater the proportion of Black students in the class, the less likely a Black will select a White as a peer. However, a White student wa s more likely to select a Black peer as a friend. It also was reported st udents who had teachers that supported intergroup contact or participated in after school sports were more likely to report cross-race friendships. Overall, these results indicate that if student s are in classrooms wher e there is opportunity to interact exclusively with one’s own racial group, it is unlikely that cross race friendships will develop. However, when students were in smaller classes, academic groups, or after school sports they were mo re likely to form intergroup friendships. These early studies demonstrate the mixed results desegregation had on intergroup contact among adolescents. White s and Blacks did not consistently report favorable attitudes towards one another or engage in friendships. However, it was consistently found that adoles cents who had engaged in more personalized activities (e.g., work or sports) with peers from different backgrounds were more likely to report

PAGE 45

36 favorable attitudes and beha viors than those who did not have these experiences. Desegregation in and of itself did not consis tently meet the requi rements suggested in Contact Theory (Allport, 1954). However, the adolescents who “accidentally” were in situations where they shared equal status, st rived to achieve common goals, wanted to get to know one another, and were supporte d by authority figures developed positive attitudes and behaviors toward s other groups. Desegregation st udies revealed there was a lot more to understand about the process of integrating students and improving intergroup relations. Multicultural Education and Anti-Racist Education Many social scientists su pported the contention that e xposure to diversity through curriculum material would result in improved intergr oup acceptance. However, multicultural education consistently fell shor t of this goal. Litcher and Johnson (1969), Litcher, Johnson and Ryan (1973), Yawkey (1973), Weigel, Wiser and Cook (1975), Sardo-Brown and Hershey (1995), and Fuhr (1996) indicated that exposure to multicultural material did not significantly impr ove intergroup attitudes or behaviors. For example, Litcher and Johnson (1969) and L itcher, Johnson and Ryan (1973) studied the effects of multicultura l curriculum material on groups of White elementary students from the Midwest in 1969 and replicated the study in 1973 with minor variations. In these studies, the meaning of multicultural educ ation was limited to passive exposure to diversity through stories and pictures. The teach ers did not discuss the pictures or stories with the students. The expressed attitudes and stereotypes of the experimental and control groups were similar before and after exposur e to the curriculum in each study. Yawkey

PAGE 46

37 (1973) attempted to decrease White elementa ry aged students biased attitudes towards Blacks using paired associate learning. For one month, the students were exposed to stories and pictures of children who were Blac k. They were expected to unlearn negative stereotypes through daily positive discussions regarding the pictures and stories. However, there was not a significant change in their attitudes towards outgroup members. Although the students reported liking the characters in the story, their positive associations did not genera lize to the larger group. Within the last ten years, Sardo-Brow n and Hershey (1995) and Fuhr (1996) found similar results. Sixth and seventh grad e students attended a predominantly White school that implemented a 16-week multic ultural program (Fuhr, 1996). Texts and movies were used to discuss ethnic gr oups in America. Students completed a questionnaire before and after the program regarding stereotypes, the importance of learning about diversity in school, and rated the materials used ( post only). Again, the multicultural education program did not have the desired benefits. Although the students indicated it was important to learn about ot her cultures prior to the program, less than two-thirds of the students felt this way af ter the program. Also, the students did not demonstrate a significant ch ange in the number of negative stereotypes that were endorsed from pre to post testing. It is im portant to note that less than 50% of the materials used were rated positively by the students which may have contributed to the negative results. However, it was suggested that multicultural education programs that emphasize the exotic differences between cultu res may have negative effects and create greater social distance betw een groups (McGregor, 1993).

PAGE 47

38 Sardo-Brown and Hershey (1995) reporte d the students’ so cial self-esteem increased following attendance at a day cam p where the participants engaged in multicultural story telling, songs, role playi ng, and listened to speakers on multicultural topics. Bigler (1999) reviewed the theori es, methods, outcomes, and limitations of multicultural education. She argued that multicu ltural education “intervention strategies designed to reduce racial ster eotyping and discrimination in children have been based on a restricted and simplistic se t of theoretical models…..and the resulting interventions have generally proved ineffective in reduci ng racial bias. In order to develop more effective intervention strategies, it is crucial to look to other lines of research that have emerged from social-cognitive and intergroup theories (p. 699).” In sum, aspects of multicultural education may contribute to impr oved attitudes and behaviors towards other groups. However, these results suggested this intervention strategy does not adequately nor independently lead to improve d intergroup attitudes or relations. As previously discussed, anti-racist education programs differ from multicultural education programs in that discussion groups in addition to expos ure to multicultural materials are used. Although Sardo-Brown and Hershey (1995) described their program as a multicultural education program, it is more characteristic of an anti-racist education program. Their program incl uded curriculum, discussions and role-play. McGregor (1993) analyzed 17 studies that used role -playing and anti-racist teaching. A metaanalysis and regression analysis revealed th ere were no significant differences between anti-racist education programs th at did or did not use role plays as part of the experience. It was hypothesized that the cognitive dissona nce that occurred through the role plays

PAGE 48

39 and/or the discussion activities was enough to challenge existing belief systems and improve racial attitudes. McGr egor also conducted a regression analyses to determine if the age of the student or year of the study affected the outcomes. It was reported that elementary and secondary students decr eased prejudice more than postsecondary students. Also, older studies evidenced grea ter effects on prejudice reduction than newer studies. Aboud and Fenwick (1999) conducted a study to assess the eff ectiveness of antiracist teaching strategies. Th e curriculum materials focu sed attention to inter-group similarities as well as individual attributes that result in differences. Over an 11-week period, fifth grade students were expose d to the curriculum through group discussion, dyadic problem solving, and individual work. Hi gh prejudiced students were paired with low prejudice students. Following the interven tion, high prejudiced students’ negative attitudes were greatly reduced and simila r to the low prejudice students. The low prejudice students did not demonstrate an incr ease in negative attitude s after being paired with the high prejudice individual. Also, the high prejudice control group students’ scores did not significantly change from preto posttest. Despite the positive results of anti-racis t education, it was not commonly used in schools. Morelli and Spencer (2000) surveyed various schoo l personnel (e.g., principal, guidance counselor, teacher) from five school districts in the Pacific Northwest and found that multicultural education was used infrequently to frequently among 82% of the respondents. Antiracist educa tion was described as neede d, but it was considered too confrontational. Individual f ears varied and ranged from po ssible denial (e.g., racism is

PAGE 49

40 not a problem here) to acceptance and reluctan ce to independently confront the problem (e.g., “It is a problem, but the community needs to change, I can’t do anything.”) Cooperative Learning In Slavin (1999), it was reported that cooperative learning groups “encourage positive social interaction among students of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds; they have great potential to facilitate the buildi ng of cross-ethnic frie ndships and to reduce racial stereotyping, discrimination, and prej udice (p. 648).” Research supports this assertion and revealed a pattern of the program components that are most likely to lead to positive outcomes. First, many studies that compared coope rative learning to in dividualistic and/or competitive learning scenarios revealed that the cooperative learning situations resulted in greater cross-ethnic fri endships (Breckheimer & Ne lson, 1976; Johnson & Johnson, 1981, 1982, 1985; Lopez-Renya, 1997; Slavin, 1995a, 1995b, 1997, Slavin & Cooper, 1999; Slavin & Madden, 1979; Weigel, Wiser, & Cook, 1975). Typically students were assigned to one of three situations. In th e cooperative condition, the students worked together to ensure all of the group members mastered the material. In the competitive condition, the students worked independently and were rewarded for performing better than peers. In the individualistic cond ition, students worked and were rewarded independently. Also, they were encouraged to avoid interacting with peers. The students were observed during class time and free time. In the initial Johnson and Johnson (1981) study, fifty-one fourth grade students were assigned to either the cooperative or individualistic condition. For analyses

PAGE 50

41 purposes, the students were placed in either the majority (White) or minority (Black, American Indian, or Hispanic) category. Fo r 16 days, the students met for 55 minutes each session and learned about two different Na tive American tribes. Ten minutes at the end of each session was used for free play. Observations of the students in the cooperative as compared to the individualistic condition revealed significantly greater cross-ethnic interaction du ring instruction and free play. These students also demonstrated greater cross-ethnic helping and on-task behaviors. Follow-up studies were conducted in accord ance with Contact Theory to reveal the importance of establishing cooperative groups which promote equal status among members, share a common goal, provide opportu nities for personalized acquaintance, and authority figures support the contact. A replication study using three conditions (cooperative, competitive, or individualistic) with fourth grade students revealed that students in the cooperative condition ma de more cross-ethnic friendship choices immediately and five months following the cooperative learning experiment (Johnson & Johnson, 1982.) Students in the competitive condition made the fewest cross-ethnic friend selections. Observations of students during free play revealed the cooperative group had significantly more cr oss ethnic interactions than the individualistic group and more, but not significantly, than the co mpetitive group. Johnson and Johnson (1985) replicated the experiment with sixth grader s using only the cooperative and competitive learning conditions. Again, the results consis tently demonstrated that the cooperative learning method improved cross-ethnic social interaction, friendships, and less conflict was experienced.

PAGE 51

42 The effects of cooperative learning on adol escents in desegregated schools also were investigated (Weigel, Wiser, & C ook, 1975; Breckheimer & Nelson, 1976). Weigel et al. (1975) assigned 324 seve nth and tenth grade students to cooperative (n = 168) or large group (n=156) learning environments a nd classified the students according to Mexican American, African American, or Angl o heritage. Students liking of other groups was mediated by condition and heritage. For example, Whites reported more respect, friendship, and liking of Mexican American students following participation in the cooperative learning experience. However, African Americans and Hispanics did not demonstrate a significant cha nge in their attitudes towa rds the respective group. Cohen and Lotan (1997) pointed out concerns that de spite the cooperative nature of cooperative learning, power struggles may occur between minority groups. The societal status quo may replicate itself within these groups with one minority group dominating the interaction over another minority group and s howing a desire to obt ain status and position among the majority group. Prejudice Reduction Empathy Training Empathy was described as an understudi ed variable that effects prejudice reduction following exposure to any of the different techniques used to improve intergroup attitudes (Stepha n & Finlay, 1999). This type of training may involve personally confronting inconsistent applica tion of personal values and/or experiencing discrimination through a simulation activity (Oskamp, 2000). Researchers propose that empathy was one of the major reasons students from the Blue Eye vs. Brown Eye experiment conducted by Jane Elliott (Pet ers, 1971) demonstrated an overwhelming

PAGE 52

43 reduction in their negative attitudes toward s African-Americans. More recent studies, attempted to examine the role empathy plays in attitude change with more specificity. One hundred and forty-one Anglo-Ameri can undergraduate students attending a university in the west were asked to read scenarios posing African Americans as the victims of discrimination at the hands of A nglo Americans to assess different types of empathic responses. Students in the experime ntal group were asked to read the scenario as if they were the person writing the event. Students in the contro l group were asked to read the scenario and simply observe charac teristics of the aut hor. The experimental group students did not demonstrate a si gnificantly higher reactive empathy (e.g., compassion or understanding) score than the control group. However, they did demonstrate a significant incr ease in parallel empathy (e.g., experienced feelings similar to the victim). For example, after reading the scenario, the expe rimental group students reported feelings of anger, annoyance, hostil ity, discomfort, and disgust significantly more than the control group. Byrnes and Kiger (1990) replicated the Blue Eyes vs. Brown Eyes discrimination simulation activity with 164 undergraduate st udents. Fifty-seven non-minority students were in the experimental group and 107 st udents were in the control group (3% minority). The students completed two attitude scales two weeks and nine weeks into the semester. The Social Scale was designed to assess social distance attitudes of non-Blacks towards Blacks. The Social Scenarios Scale examined students’ willingness to condone, ignore, or confront discriminatory si tuations involving Blacks. In between administrations of the surveys, the students in the experimental group then watched the

PAGE 53

44 Blue Eyes vs. Brown Eyes film and severa l days later participated in a similar discrimination simulation activity. The result s indicated that th e experimental group participants were significantly more willing to confront discrimination (as assessed by the Social Scenarios Scale) than members of th e control group. However, as measured by the Social Distance Scale, the experimental group did not report an increased level of comfort interacting with Blacks. In this study, empathy training was the t echnique primarily used to reduce the occurrence of prejudiced attit udes. However, as illustrated throughout this section, there are multiple strategies that can be used to increase acceptance of diversity. In the Byrnes and Kiger (1990) study, the discrimination simu lation appeared effective at teaching the non-minority experimental group that discrimi nation is a painful experience and steps must be taken to stop its occurrence. Ho wever, since there was no contact between diverse groups in this study, the participants may not generalize their new attitudes to real life settings. Community Involvement Community involvement is another activ ity that shows a relationship with improved acceptance of diversity. However, if this outcome is not planned for, then it is not likely to occur. Various forms of comm unity involvement were investigated to determine its effect on moral development, sense of civic duty, acceptance of others, and/or feelings of social responsibility (Hamilton & Fenzel, 1988; Hart & Fegley, 1995; Moore & Allen, 1996; Yates, 1999; Yates & Youniss, 1996). Community involvement experiences that were related to increase d acceptance of divers ity included follow-up

PAGE 54

45 discussion groups (Yates, 1999; Yates & Y ouniss, 1996). In these studies, civic engagement increased intergroup contact a nd evoked the empathy needed to revise ingrained stereotypes. It also provided an opportunity for personalized acquaintances that would not occur under other c onditions. Participants disc ussed their experiences and confronted their biases in a structured group format (Yates, 1999; Yates & Youniss, 1996). However, community involvement expe riences that did not include discussion groups did not significantly change the part icipants’ acceptance of diversity (Niemi, Hepburn, & Chapman, 2000). Therefore, commun ity involvement activities that are intended to increase the participants’ acceptan ce of others should also include planned discussion groups. Social responsibility and social comp etence were two additional variables sporadically assessed following commun ity involvement experiences. Social responsibility and social competence are tw o constructs believed to increase in conjunction with participati ng in community projects (Pan cer, Pratt, & Hunsberger, 2000). Adolescents who have participated in prejudice reduction programs, youth community activities, and/or social skills trai ning are more likely to possess the skills needed to break through barriers posed by “isms.” Researchers demonstrated that adolescents who were involved in community service activities showed less alienation, disaffection, and antisocial behavior and in creased feelings of social responsibility (Hamilton & Fenzel, 1988; Pancer, Pratt, & Hunsberger, 1998; Yates & Youniss, 1996). In one follow-up study, adolescents who were active in the community reported greater

PAGE 55

46 optimism, self-esteem, and identify formation when compared to those who were not involved in the community (Pance r, Pratt, & Hunsberger, 2000). Summary Since Desegregation, social scientists a nd educators have learned the importance of layering on the various prejudice reducti on techniques to maximize the likelihood of developing a program that effectively incr eases harmonious intergroup relations. As illustrated throughout this section, the program s differ in several respects. There are variations in approach, (pro cess used, length, duration of session), scope (depth of curriculum or intensity of experience), subjects studied, and outcomes analyzed. The interventions used to reduce prej udice and discrimination range from one component to multiple components. For ex ample, desegregation provided opportunities for intergroup contact. However, the results of this independent strategy were not very promising. Multiple component interventions such as cooperative learning or anti-racist education programs incorporated more strategi es to address the theoretical underpinnings of “why” intolerance occurs in the first pl ace. For example, blending the empirically validated components of thes e various programs would result in an experience which promotes the participants to make personal contact with members of diverse groups, discuss and confront biases or fears, learn about others’ customs and traditions, develop personalized acquaintances, and, in some cases experience discrimi nation first hand in order to evoke empathy. The outcomes inves tigated range from improved attitudes and behaviors towards members of diverse groups to improved knowledge, increased community involvement, feelings of social responsibility, and social competence.

PAGE 56

47 Unfortunately, none of the studies to date incorporate each of the components of an effective prejudice reduction program as well as analyze multiple outcomes before and after adolescents participate in a week long program designed to foster intergroup acceptance, promote community involvement, and teach the skills necessary to confront discrimination. Anytown A program that encompasses all of these strategies is Anytown. Since the 1950’s, the National Conference for Community and Justice (NCCJ) has s ponsored a week long residential diversity awareness program called Anytown. It was designe d to create leaders who possess the skills necessary to fight prejudice and discrimination while promoting acceptance of others and community invol vement. The Anytown program components directly align with the re commended prejudice reduction pr ogram components described above. Upon arrival at Anytown, the staff separa te existing friendship networks. Behind the scenes the staff observes the adolescents to identify cliques. The program directors then separate the cliques into different dormitories and daily discussion groups. This provides an opportunity for each adolescent to naturally encounter members from diverse backgrounds. Staff members also play a cruc ial role in developing dialogue between newly acquainted adolescents, modeling interg roup contact, and suppor ting this contact. These strategies were ba sed on Allport’s theory. The adolescents are referred to as delegate s to promote an understanding that they are representing their schools and communities. The daily schedule remains consistent,

PAGE 57

48 but the small group discussions, experientia l workshops, and activity based evening programs differ dependent upon the daily them e and planned activities. Daily themes include know yourself, know your friends, kno w your family, separation, and know your community. These activities provide time for se lf reflection and growth, the formation of friendships, and critical analys is of society. Delegates are provided with an opportunity to think about, discuss, and learn about themse lves, how they believe they fit into their community, if they want to contri bute, and how they can get involved. Workshop examples include increasing awar eness of one’s own racial identity, personally experiencing disabili ty and discrimination, learning about society and media’s influence on gender stereotypes, learning about atrocities such as the holocaust and the middle passage as well as discussing the bene fits of social activism. Workshops are done in a dyadic and cooperative learning format with counselors and advisors leading the activities. Counselors are students who previ ously attended Anytown. They range in age from 16 to 24 years. Counselors run the majo rity of the workshops. Advisors are people from the community who volunteer their time to facilitate the Anytown experience. The age range of the advisors starts at 24 year s and progresses through the life span. Some advisors are in their fifties and sixties. C ounselors lead the activities and the advisors provide support when necessar y. The purpose of this format is to provide the delegates with an opportunity to learn from their pe ers in a structured, cooperative, and guided setting. Anytown was developed based on Allport’ s contact theory. The solid evidence that supports the use of this approach sugge sts that Anytown partic ipants will increase

PAGE 58

49 their acceptance of diversity. Additional res earch that supports th e use of cooperative learning, group discussions, and planne d experiences of discrimination through simulation exercises indicate that Anytown pa rticipants are highly likely to experience many positive outcomes. Through this experience negative stereotypes are confronted, empathy is evoked for victims of discrimi nation, intergroup anxiety is decreased, and social awareness increased. The goals of the Anytown program include improving the adolescents’ ability to explain the concepts of prejudice as well as increase their (a) acceptance of diversity, (b) social responsibility, (c ) social competence, and (d) community involvement (NCCJ, 2003). In August of 2001, Anytown was highlighted as an exemplary program in the U.S. Department of Education’s Community U pdate Newsletter (Ashby, 2001). An evaluation conducted by Ohm (1987) and reports from th e NCCJ to funding sources indicated that the participants’ feelings of social responsibility, community involvement, and knowledge of discriminatory terms improved (NCCJ, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003). However, these findings were based on da ta collected exclusively from Anytown participants immediately prior to and direc tly following exposure to the program. First, the previous studies did not investigate the rela tionship between attending Anytown and acceptance of diversity or social competen ce. Second, previous investigation did not compare Anytown participants to a contro l group. Third, follow-up data only were collected when the students were concl uding their participation in an exciting, emotionally charging, and potentially meaningf ul life experience that was shared with members from diverse groups. Due to these ev aluation limitations, it is unclear if these

PAGE 59

50 changes are a result of Anytown and, if s o, whether these changes persist over time. McWhiter, Paulch, and Ohm (1988) indicated th at much of Anytown’s success is “based on testimonials, reports, and subjective accounts from people who have participated in the program” (p. 122). A rigorous and me thodologically sound evaluation of the outcomes of the Anytown experience was not previously available. Information was collected from Anytown pa rticipants, their parents, and a control group of adolescents and their parents. The purpos es of this study were to (a) evaluate the effectiveness of the Anytown program by systematically analyzing the program objectives, and (b) provide additi onal data that can be used to modify the curriculum. Research Hypotheses 1. Adolescents who attend the Anytown dive rsity awareness program will report a statistically significant increase in their: a.) knowledge of discriminatory terms, b.) social competence, c.) acceptance of others, d.) feelings of social responsibility, and e.) community involvement when compared to a similar group of a dolescents who did not attend the program. 2. Females who attend the Anytown divers ity awareness program will report a greater increase in their: a.) social competence, b.) acceptance of others,

PAGE 60

51 c.) feelings of social responsibility, and d.) community involvement when compared to males who attended the program. 3. After attending the Anytown diversity awareness program, adolescents from different racial backgrounds will be more similar in their: b.) acceptance of others, and c.) feelings of social responsibility. 4. Parents of adolescents who attend the Anytown diversity awareness program will report a significant increase in their percepti ons of their children’s : a.) social competence, and b.) community involvement, when compared to parents of a simila r group of adolescents who did not attend the program.

PAGE 61

52 Chapter Three Method This section describes the procedures used to investigate the effects of a leadership and diversity awareness program on adolescents’ attitudes and behaviors. The research design, participants, treatment, inst ruments, and data collection procedures are described in detail. Research Design A nonequivalent control-gr oup longitudinal design was used to examine the effects of a leadership and diversity awar eness program on adoles cents’ knowledge of discriminatory terms, acceptance of diversit y, social competence, feelings of social responsibility, and community involvement. Ad olescents who did and did not attend the program completed three analogous surveys in a 12-month period. Si milarly, parents of adolescents who did and did not attend the program reported on their child’s social competence and community involvement. Participants The data were collected from male and female high school students who volunteered to attend a week long leadership and diversity awareness program (Anytown/Experimental Group) or volunteered to participate (Control Group) in this study through recruitment in high school social studies classes. Some of their parents also participated. All participants resided in the so utheastern portion of the United States. The

PAGE 62

53 demographic characteristics of the four groups (Anytown Participants/Experimental Group, Control Group Participants, Parents of Anytown Delegates, and Parents of Control Group Participants) are described in frequencies and proportions below. Anytown Participants/Ex perimental Group (Exp) Of the original 325 experimental group participants, 99 completed a pre-, post-, and follow-up survey. Thirty-six percent were male, 66% enrolled in the 9th or 10th grade, 25% were Caucasian, 71% were Christia n, and 37% percent we re eligible for free/reduced lunch (see Tabl e 3). There were not signifi cant proportional demographic differences between the original Anytown gr oup (n = 325) and the subset (n = 99) who elected to participate in all phases of th is study. This suggested the subset was a representative sample of the original participants (see Table 4). Control Group – Adolescents (Cont) Of the 350 high school students asked to pa rticipate in this study, 108 completed a pre-, post-, and follow-up survey. Fifty-three percent were male, 75%, were enrolled in the 10th or 11th grade, 58% were Caucasia n, 69% were Christian, and 26% percent were eligible for free/reduced lunch (see Tabl e 3). There were significant proportional demographic differences between the Anytown and control groups in the areas of grade, race, grade-point average, eligibility fo r free/reduced lunch, and participation on a multicultural committee { 2 (3, 207) = 28.417, p = .000; 2 (3, 207) = 54.972, p = .000; 2 (3, 198) = 12.232, p = .007; 2 (2, 205) = 8.265, p = .016, 2 (1, 205) = 8.054, p =

PAGE 63

54 Table 3 – Experimental and Control Group Adolescent Demographic Characteristics Demographic Characteristics Categories Exp post N Exp post % Exp F-up N Exp F-up % Cont N Cont % Male 102 31.4 36 36.36 53 49.07 Female 222 68.3 63 63.64 55 50.93 Missing 1 0.3 0 0.00 0 0.00 Gender Total 325 100 99 100.00 108 100.00 9th 102 31.4 35 35.35 7 6.48 10th 92 28.3 30 30.30 37 34.26 11th 81 24.9 23 23.23 46 42.59 12th 46 14.2 11 11.11 18 16.67 Missing 4 1.2 0 0.00 0 0.00 Grade Total 325 100 99 100.00 108 100.00 Caucasian 127 39.1 26 26.26 58 53.70 Black 131 40.3 46 46.46 5 4.63 Hispanic/Latino 50 15.4 15 15.15 37 34.26 Native American 6 1.8 3 3.03 0 0.00 Asian/Pacific Islander 4 1.2 1 1.01 3 2.78 Other 7 2.2 8 8.08 5 4.63 Missing 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 0.00 Race/ Ethnicity Total 325 100.0 99 100.00 108 100.00 Christian 233 71.7 71 71.72 74 68.52 Jewish 5 1.5 3 3.03 7 6.48 Muslim 5 1.5 0 0.00 0 0.00 Buddhist 1 0.3 0 0.00 2 1.85 Other 73 22.5 23 23.23 25 23.15 Missing 8 2.5 2 2.02 0 0.00 Religion Total 325 100 99 100.00 108 100.00 Yes 122 37.5 37 37.37 27 25.00 No 122 37.5 38 38.38 64 59.26 Unsure 76 23.4 22 22.22 17 15.74 Missing 5 1.5 2 2.02 0 0.00 Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunch Total 325 99.9 99 100.00 108 100.00 Yes 94 28.9 25 25.25 12 11.11 No 221 68 69 69.70 96 88.89 Missing 10 3.1 5 5.05 0 0.00 Multicultural/ Student Advisory Committee Total 325 100 99 100.00 108 100.00

PAGE 64

55 Table 4 – Chi-Square Analyses of Experi mental Group Demographi c Characteristics Anytown group1 Characteristic df2 N 2* p-value** Phi Gender (1 = Male; 2 = Female) 1 423 .822 .365 -.044 Grade (1 = 9th; 2 = 10th; 3 = 11th, 4 = 12th) 3 420 1.067 .785 .050 Race/Ethnicity (1 = Caucasian; 2 = Black; 5 = Other; 6 = Hispanic) 3 417 4.578 .205 .105 Religion (1 = Christian; 5 = Other) 1 414 .004 .952 .003 Free/Reduced Lunch (1 = Yes; 2 = No; 3 = Unsure) 2 417 .058 .972 .012 Grade-point average (1 = below .9; 2 = 1.0 to 1.9; 3 = 2.0 to 2.9; 4 = 3.0 to 3.9; 5 = 4.0 and above) 4 397 1.298 .862 .057 Multicultural Committee (1 = Yes; 2 = No) 1 409 .370 .543 .030 1 = Anytown group refers to participants from original sample vs. subset of participants 2 = Note that small sample sizes precluded analyses of race and religion using original categories. In the race/ethnicity category, four groups were formed (e.g., White, Black, Hispanic/Latino, and other) instead of six. In the religion category, two groups (e.g., Christian and other) were formed instead of five. The Pearson Chi-Square test statistic was used. ** p < .05 were considered significant Table 5 – Chi-Square Analyses of Expe rimental and Contro l Group Demographic Characteristics Group1 Characteristic df2 N 2* p-value** Phi Gender 1 207 3.405 .065 -.128 Grade 3 207 28.417 .000 .371 Race/Ethnicity 3 20 7 54.972 .000 .515 Grade-point average 3 198 12.232 .007 .249 Religion 1 205 54.972 .462 .051 Free/Reduced Lunch 2 205 8.265 .016 .201 Multicultural Committee 1 202 8.054 .005 .200 1 = Group refers to participants from experimental or control group 2 = Note that small sample sizes precluded analyses of race and religion using original categories. In the race/ethnicity category, four groups were formed (e.g., White, Black, Hispanic/Latino, and other) instead of six. In the religion category, two groups (e.g., Christian and other) were formed instead of five. The Pearson Chi-Square test statistic was used. ** p < .05 were considered significant

PAGE 65

56 .005, respectively). Significant differences were not observed in the areas of gender and religion (see Table 5). Experimental Group – Parents (Exp-P) A limited number of experimental group pa rents participated in this study: 23 parents responded to the presurvey, and 27 di fferent parents responded to the postsurvey (see Table 6). The demographic characteristics are presented in Table 6. The majority of pre and post-survey respondents were moth ers with a college education. Also, the majority of the students we re not on free/reduced lunch. Control Group (Cont-P) Thirty-three control gr oup parents participated in the study: 84% were mothers, 42.4% were parents of tenth grade students, and 45% a high school diploma, GED or lower. Also, approximately 61% of these pare nts had a child eligible for free/reduced lunch (see Table 6). Chi-Square Analyses Chi-square analyses were conducted to determine if there were significant proportional demographic differences between the parent respondents. The parents were proportionally similar in race/ethnicity, child ’s grade level, and community involvement (see Table 7). Significant differences were obs erved between the parents’ education level and adolescents’ eligibility for free/reduced lunch { 2 (2, 56) =12.463, p = .002; 2 (1, 54) = 6.135, p = .013, respectively). Of the Anytown pa rents, 91% had at least some college experience compared to 54% of the control gr oup parents. Also, 30% of Anytown parents

PAGE 66

57 Table 6 – Experimental and Control Gr oup Parent Demographic Characteristics Demographic Characteristics Categories Exp-P* Pre N Exp-P Pre % Exp-P F-UpN Exp-P F-up % Cont-P** Pre-N Cont-P Pre % Parental Mother 15 65.2 23 85.2 28 84.8 Status Father 4 17.4 2 7.4 1 3 Both 0 0 1 3.7 2 6.1 Other 4 17.4 1 3.7 2 6.1 Total 23 100 27 100 33 100 Child’s Grade 9th 6 26.1 1 3.7 1 3 Level 10th 8 34.8 11 40.7 14 42.4 11th 6 26.1 5 18.5 9 27.3 12th 3 13 9 33.3 9 27.3 College 0 0 1 3.7 0 0 Total 23 100 27 100 33 100 Race Caucasian 14 60.9 14 51.9 12 36.4 Black 7 30.5 8 29.6 10 30.3 Other 2 8.6 5 18.5 11 33.3 Total 23 100 27 100 33 100 Eligible for Yes 7 30.4 7 25.9 20 60.6 Free/Reduced No 16 69.6 16 59.3 11 33.3 Lunch Unsure 0 0 4 14.8 2 6.1 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 23 100 27 100 33 100 Parent < HS diploma 0 0 1 3.7 3 9.1 Education GED 0 0 1 3.7 1 3 Level HS Diploma 2 8.7 3 11.1 11 33.3 Some College 6 26.1 6 22.2 5 15.2 College Diploma 7 30.4 7 25.9 11 33.3 Graduate Degree 8 34.8 9 33.3 2 6.1 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 23 100 27 100 33 100 Community > 4 a month 4 17.4 9 33.3 2 6.1 Involvement 1-3 a month 4 17.4 2 7.4 6 18.2 Several times a year 10 43.5 9 33.3 10 30.3 Once every few years 2 8.7 6 22.2 9 27.3 Never 3 13 1 3.7 6 18.2 Note. Exp-P = Experimental Group Parent ** Cont-P = Control Group Parent

PAGE 67

58 reported their child was eligible for free/redu ced lunch compared to 60% of the control group parents. Table 7 – Chi-Square Analyses of Experime ntal and Control Group Parent Demographic Characteristics Group1 Characteristic df N 2* p-value Phi Parent 1 56 2.93 0.09 -0.23 Grade 3 56 7.25 0.06 0.36 Race/Ethnicity 2 56 5.30 0.07 0.31 Free/Reduced Lunch 1 54 6.14 .013** -0.34 Parent Education Level2 2 56 12.46 .002** 0.47 Community Involvement 3 56 3.79 0.30 0.26 1= Group refers to Experimental Group Parent or Control Group Parent. 2=Note that small sample sizes precluded analyses of parent education level usin g original categories. In this category, four groups were formed from the original six ( High School Experience or Diploma; Some College; College Diploma, or Graduate Degree). The Pearson Chi-Square test statistic was used. ** p < .05 were considered significant Treatment The Anytown Program The techniques used at the Anytown program were consistent with the recommended components of effective prej udice reduction programs. The adolescents experienced intergroup contact and activities that combined multicultural and anti-racist education with cooperative learning a nd prejudice reducti on empathy training. Throughout the experience, the need for commun ity involvement to facilitate societal change also was emphasized. Throughout the week at Anytown, the adol escents participated in workshops, discussion groups, dorm meetings, a cultural program, talent show, and daily ceremonies designed to celebrate unity (see Appendix A). Some highlights from the program included the workshop and discussion group t opics. Workshop activities involved using

PAGE 68

59 experiential exercises to increase underst anding of the difference between debate and dialogue (The Great Debate), anti-Semitism and genocide (Holocaust, Bosnia, the Middle Passage), and heterosexism. The themes of the small group discussions included know yourself, your friends, your family, and your community. On the final day the adolescents discussed reentering their schools and communities. During each of these workshops and small group activities, the adolescents shared their feelings about each topic and participat ed in activities such as trust building, the human knot, and the family atom. After spen ding four days break ing down cultural and racial barriers, the adolescents were sepa rated into their culture groups without an explanation. The co-directors of Anytown put arm bands on the adolescents according to their culture group and the adolescents were in formed that they could no longer interact with members of other culture groups. This activity was designed to simulate discrimination first hand and opposed everyt hing the adolescents learned throughout the week. Overall, adolescents were expected to come away from the Anytown program with a better understanding of themselves, interg roup relations, the eff ects of prejudice and discrimination, and the skills necessary to br idge the barriers between groups (see Appendix B). Instruments The surveys developed for the adolescent participants in this research project were designed to measure the Anytown progr am objectives (see Appendix B). The preand follow-up survey (see Appendix C) were identical and requested demographic information, in addition to assessing knowledge of discriminatory terms, feelings of

PAGE 69

60 social competence, social responsibilit y, acceptance of diversity, and community involvement. On the postsurvey demographi c information and community involvement were not requested but all other meas ures were included (see Appendix D). The preand follow-up scantron surveys admi nistered to parent participants were identical (see Appendix E). The survey reque sted demographic information and asked the parents to rate the adolescent’s social competence and community involvement. The Anytown surveys are descri bed in detail below. Definitions of Discriminatory Terms The Definitions of Discriminatory Terms (DDT) measure consists of eight items (see Appendix F). It was developed by st aff at the NCCJ to assess knowledge of discriminatory terms. During activities and workshops at Anytown, the definitions of stereotype, prejudice, disc rimination, ageism, sexism, racism, homophobia, and antiSemitism were reviewed. The students were as ked to read a definition for each item and select the correct term from a set of four c hoices. Scores ranged from 0 to 100 percent. The NCCJ staff and other experts reported the DDT was a valid measure of knowledge of discriminatory terms (NCCJ, 2003). In a pr evious use of the DDT, a Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of .75 (n = 281) was obtai ned. In this administration of the DDT, a Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of .76 (n = 319) was obtained. Youth Diversity Acceptance Scale The Youth Diversity Acceptance Scale (YDAS) is a 12-item questionnaire designed to assess the amount of contact adolescents have w ith members of other races, ethnicities, sexual orientation, and ability le vels (see Appendix G). Respondents indicated

PAGE 70

61 their agreement with each item on a 4-point scale ranging from st rongly disagree to strongly agree. Scores may range from a lo w of 12 to a high of 48. Three of the 12 items were negatively worded and reverse scored. This measure was developed by the author through analysis of the literature, review ing existing diversity acceptance surveys, interviewing NCCJ staff and former Anytown participants, and obtaining feedback from NCCJ staff and experts in the field. In a pr evious use of the YDAS measure (data from 2003), internal consistency was establis hed (r = .76, n = 279) (NCCJ, 2003). In this administration of the YDAS, a Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of .81 (n = 303) was obtained. Youth Social Competence Scale The Youth Social Competence Scale (YSC S) is a 14-item questionnaire designed to assess adolescents’ comfort and confidence in various social situ ations (see Appendix H). The items are rated on a 4-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Total scores may range from a lo w YSCS score of 14 to a high score of 56. Four of the 14-items were negatively word ed and reverse scored. This measure was developed by the author through analysis of the literature, review of social skills and social competence surveys, interviewing NCCJ staff and former Anytown participants, and obtaining feedback from NCCJ staff and e xperts in the field. In a previous use of the YSCS measure, internal consistency was established (r = .72, n = 281) (NCCJ, 2003). In this administration of the YSCS, a Cronbach ’s coefficient alpha of .83 (n = 300) was obtained.

PAGE 71

62 Youth Social Responsibility Scale The Youth Social Responsibility Scal e (YSRS; Pancer, 1997) is a 29-item questionnaire designed to assess adolescents’ feelings of social responsibility (see Appendix I). The YSRS items are rated on a 5-point scale. Adolescents rated their agreement, disagreement, or neutrality towa rds each item. Scores may range from very high (145 -points) to approximate ly neutral (87 -points) to ve ry low (29 -points). Twelve of the 29 items were negatively worded and reverse scored. The original scale consisted of a nine -point likert-type scale. For the purpose of this study, the 9-point scale was revised to a 5-point scale. It was predicted that a 5-point scale still would provide an accurate estimate of feelings regarding social responsibility as well as evidence reliability. The original YSRS yielded a Cronbach ’s coefficient alpha of .87 (n = 314) (Pancer, 1997). The revise d YSRS yielded a Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of .89 (n = 263) in a previous use of this measure for the Anytown program (NCCJ, 2003). In this administration of the YSRS, a Cronbach’s coefficien t alpha of .90 (n = 273) was obtained. Youth Inventory of Involvement The Youth Inventory of Involvement (YII) (Pancer, 1997) is a 30-item questionnaire that was designed to assess the type and frequency of involvement adolescents have in political community, and helping activ ities (see Appendix J). The YII items are rated on a 5-point scale. Adolescents rated th e frequency with which they participated in each activity listed in the la st three months. The choices range from a low of 0 (never did this) to 4 (did this often) and scores range from 0 to 140.

PAGE 72

63 The YII was used to demonstrate level of involvement ranging from highly involved to uninvolved. Limited agreement with any items on the YII suggests that the respondent is uninvolved and implies that he or she interacts predominantly with family and friends. In a previous use of the YII by Pancer (2000) and the NCCJ for the Anytown program (NCCJ, 2003), Cronbach’s coefficient alphas of .90 (n = 896) and .92 (n = 253) were obtained (Pancer, 2000; NCCJ, 2003). In this administration of the YSCS, a Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of .92 (n = 287) also was obtained. Parental Perceptions of Adoles cent’s Social Competence Questionnaire The Parental Perceptions of Adoles cent’s Social Competence Questionnaire (PPASC) is a 20-item questionnaire (see A ppendix K). Parents were asked to indicate their agreement with items pertaining to so cial competence on a 4-point scale. Scores may range from a low of 20 to a high of 80. Si x of the 20 items were negatively worded and reverse scored. This measure was developed by the author through an analysis of the social competence and social skills literature, as well as by reviewing existing surveys and interviewing parents of former Anytown participants. Seven of the 20 items on the PPASC correspond with items on the YSCS. A pilo t test to obtain reliability for this instrument was attempted. Four hundred su rveys were mailed to the parents of adolescents whom completed an interest in attending Anytown card, but the adolescent did not actually attend the program. Only 12 were returned and these data were determined insufficient to perform a pr ecise reliability analysis. During this administration of the PPASC, data from parent s of Anytown particip ants and parents of

PAGE 73

64 the adolescent control group were combined to yield an internal consistency reliability estimate. A Cronbach’s coefficient al pha of .89 (n = 78) was obtained. Youth Inventory of Involv ement – Parent Perceptions The Youth Inventory of Involvement – Pa rent Perceptions (YII-PP) is analogous to the previously described YII (see Appendi x L) developed by Pan cer (1997). It is a 30item questionnaire that was designed to assess the type and frequency of involvement adolescents have in political, community, and helping activities. However, the directions and the rating scale were reworded to assess the parents’ percepti ons of their child’s involvement in these activities. Data from pare nts of Anytown particip ants and parents of the adolescent control group were combined to yield an internal consistency reliability estimate. A Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of .93 (n = 78) was obtaine d. In a previous use of this measure by adolescents, Pancer (2000) obtained a Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of .90 (n = 896). Table 8 illustrates when the pre-, post-, and follow-up surveys were administered. Table 8 – Measures Administered at Pre-, Post-, and Follow-Up Subjects Variables Pre Post (1 week) Follow-Up (3, 9 or 10 months) Adolescents DemographicsX X (Control and DDTX X X Experimental YDASX X X Group) YSCSX X X YSRSX X X YIIX X Parents DemographicsX X (Control and PPASCX X Experimental P-YII X X Group) X = Included on the survey to be completed

PAGE 74

65 Data Collection Procedures Institutional Approval In the first phase of this study, appr oval was obtained from a) the Tampa Bay Chapter of the National Conference for Community Justice (NCCJ), b) the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of S outh Florida (USF), and c) a school district on the west coast of central Florida which was utilized to recruit the control group participants. Confidentiality All participants were informed that th eir responses were confidential and the researcher was the only person who could li nk a name with the pe rsonal code entered on the surveys. Personal codes c onsisted of the adolescent’s birth month, birthday, and the first two letters of his/her last name (e.g., 0729LY for July 29, Lyons). At the completion of the project, all records linking name s to personal codes were destroyed. Anytown Program Sessions During the summer of 2004, seven sessions of the Anytown program were held at an Episcopalian retreat center in west centr al Florida. Each week a different group of adolescents were transported by bus to and from the retreat center. The participants arrived on Sunday afternoon and departed the following Saturday afternoon. Recruitment and Data Collection Proce dures for Anytown/ Experimental Group Participants Adolescents were recruited for the pr ogram by staff members from NCCJ. The staff presented at high schools in three school districts located in west central Florida and

PAGE 75

66 provided an overview of the Anytown progr am. Adolescents who wanted to attend submitted an interest card to NCCJ. The NCCJ staff contacted the adolescents prior to the program to confirm attendance. The adolescents who participated in this study completed a pre-, post-, and follow-up survey. Parents of these adolescents were sent the Anytown Research Project Parent and Child Participant Information form (Appendix M), the Parent Survey (Appendix E), and a return self-addressed stamped envelope. Th e Information form explained the purpose, procedures/duration, benefits/risks, and the volun tary nature of this research project. It also explained the procedure to follow if the parent did not want his/her child to participate. The University of South Florida (USF) approved a waiver of written consent on July 17, 2003, June 8, 2004, and April 22, 20 05. Parents were asked to mail the completed Parent Survey to the NCCJ office. Of the 392 parents, 23 returned the parent presurvey yielding a return rate of 6%. No pare nt barred their child from participating in the study. Upon arrival at the retreat center, the Anytown Research Project Parent and Child Participant Information form (Appendix M) wa s read to the adolescents to obtain child assents. Eighty-three percent agreed to participate. Anytown Preand Postsurvey Data Collection Before and after the Anytown program, th e adolescents were asked to complete the preand postsurvey, respectively. Survey s were completed inde pendently in a large group setting. Reading assistan ce was monitored by the researcher and Anytown staff members by circulating the room and quietly asking those who were completing the

PAGE 76

67 survey slowly or not working on the survey if they needed assistance. If an adolescent responded affirmatively, the assistant read the items aloud from a separate survey to maintain confidentiality. Anytown Group Follow-Up Survey Data Collection Eight to ten months after postsurvey data were colle cted the parents of the Anytown participants were sent a follow-up packet. The packet included a copy of the Anytown Research Project Parent and Child Participant Information form (Appendix M), the Parent Survey (Appendix E), the Anytow n follow-up survey (Appendix C), an index card, and a return self-addressed stamped enve lope. As an incentive, participants were asked to return the index card with the survey to enter a dr awing for a $50 gift certificate to a shopping mall. Three week s after the initial mailing, pa rticipants were called and encouraged to return the survey. After another three weeks data collection was concluded. Response rates are provided in Ta ble 9, and Table 10 provides an overview of when data were collected. Recruitment and Data Collection of Control Group Participants During the fall of 2004, 12 high school princi pals from a school district in west central Florida were contacted and asked to pa rticipate in a research project analyzing the effects of the Anytown program on adolescent s’ attitudes and behaviors. They were informed 9th through 12th graders enrolled in social studie s classes would be needed. Five principals agreed to participate and refe rred the researcher to the social studies department chair for further assistance. Ho wever, due to inclement weather and other

PAGE 77

68 departmental considerations, the principals of all schools delayed data collection from Fall of 2004 until Winter of 2005. Table 10 i llustrates when data were collected. Table 9 – Response Rates for Each Phase of Data Collection Table 10 – Overview of Dates Participants Completed Surveys Group Session or School Pre Post* (1 week) Follow-Up (9-10 months) Anytown** 1 June 2004 June 2004 March 2005 2 June 2004 June 2004 March 2005 3 June 2004 June 2004 March 2005 4 June 2004 June 2004 March 2005 5 July 2004 July 2004 March 2005 6 July 2004 July 2004 March 2005 7 July 2004 July 2004 March 2005 Control*** 1 January 2005 January 2005 April 2005 2 January 2005 January 2005 April 2005 3 February 2005 February 2005 May 2005 4 February 2005 February 2005 May 2005 5 February 2005 February 2005 Did not participate Note. Only Adolescents completed the post-survey. * No parents who completed the pr survey for the Anytown participants were among those who returned a follow-up survey. Group Pre Distributed Pre Returned Response Rate Percent Post Distributed Post Returned Response Rate Percent Follow-Up Distributed Follow-Up Returned Response Rate Percent Anytown Parent 392 23 6% ---325 27 8% Adolescent 392 325 83% 392 325 83% 325 99 30% Control Parent 125 33 26% ------Adolescent (Total) 350 237 68% 186 156 84% 156 108 69% School 1 125 92 74% 41 27 66% 27 17 63% School 2 60 32 53% 32 27 84% 27 26 96% School 3 50 39 78% 39 39 100% 39 39 100% School 4 72 42 58% 42 36 86% 36 26 72% School 5 43 32 74% 32 27 84% 27 0 0%

PAGE 78

69 *** Parents of the control group were not asked to return a follow-up survey due to the limited number of responses to the pre-survey in both the experimental and control groups. The researcher met separately with the so cial studies department chair from each school. Meetings were held to review the da ta collection procedures and survey packet with the department chair and other partic ipating teachers. Upon returning to their classes, the teachers informed the adoles cents about the research project and the opportunity to win a $50 gift cer tificate. They then read the Anytown Research Project Parent and Child Participant Information (control group consent letter) (Appendix O), and distributed the packets to the interest ed students. The original packet included a copy of the control group consent letter, a parent survey, an adolescent presurvey, and two inde x cards. The adolescents were asked to bring the packet home and share it with a pare nt. If a parent decide d to participate, the adolescents were asked to return the complete d parent’s packet with permission slip to the classroom teacher. The adolescents were in formed, if they obtained parental consent, they could still participate rega rdless of his or her parent ’s participation. Students who elected not to participate were asked to return the packet to the teacher. The consent letter described a chance to win an incentive reward for participating in the study. Each time a survey was co mpleted, the respondents wrote their name, address, and phone number on an index card. A dr awing was held at the end of the data collection period at each school. One randomly selected adolescent from each high school was awarded a $50 gift certif icate to a local shopping mall.

PAGE 79

70 Control Group: Pre-, Postand Follow-Up Survey Data Collection. Presurvey data collection occurred three to four days after the packet s were distributed and parent consents obtained. Postsurvey data collec tion occurred one week later, and follow-up data collection occurred afte r three months (see Table 10) At all of the schools, the adolescents completed the pre-, post-, and follo w-up surveys in class rather than at home, and reading assistance was offered by the classroom teacher. Summary The effects of the Anytown program on a dolescents’ attitudes and behaviors were investigated using a nonequivalent control-gr oup longitudinal design. Da ta were collected from the Anytown participants, high school stud ents enrolled in social studies courses, and some parents at three points in time ove r a period of three to 12 months. The next chapter presents the analys es to the research questi ons posed in this study. 1.) Did the adolescents who attended the Anytown program demonstrate a greater increase in thei r knowledge of discriminatory terms, acceptance of diversity, social competence, soci al responsibility, and community involvement when compared to a dolescents who did not attend the program? 2.) Did the females who attended the Anytown program report a greater increase in their social compet ence, acceptance of others, social responsibility, and community involvem ent when compared to males who attended the program?

PAGE 80

71 3.) Did adolescents with different raci al/ethnic backgrounds become more similar in their acceptance of others and feelings of social responsibility? 4.) Did parents of adolescents who atte nded the Anytown program report an increase in their children’s social competence and community involvement when compared to parents of adoles cents who did not attend the program?

PAGE 81

72 Chapter Four Results The questions posed in this study required statistical analyses capable of handling a doubly multivariate repeated measures design with covariates to examine the association between Anytown pr ogram participation and (a) adolescents’ attitudes and behaviors as well as (b) their parents’ perceptions. Analyses were carried out using the repeated measures multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) procedures in SPSS 11.0. The research questions were analyzed and discussed separately. In each section, the descriptive data are presen ted, assumptions discussed, and the effects described. Hypotheses Hypothesis One Adolescents who attend the Anytown diversity awareness program will report a statistically significant increas e in their: knowledge of discriminatory terms (DDT), social competence (YSCS), acceptance of others (YDAS), feelings of social responsibility (YSRS), and community involve ment (YII) when compared to a similar group of adolescents who did not attend the program. Hypothesis one was supported as adolescents who attended the Anytown diversity awareness program demonstrated significantl y greater change on the dependent variables than the control group. The experimental (Anyt own) and control groups were surveyed at three points in time on four of the measures (DDT, YSCS, YDAS, and YSRS) and at two

PAGE 82

73 Table 11 – Descriptive Statistics for Measur es by Anytown and Control Group over Time Est. Marg. Mean1 M sd sk k Cohen’s d DDT Anytown2 Pre 0.77 0.75 0.26 -1.14 0.82 0.62a Post 0.91 0.89 0.20 -2.36 5.86 -0.01b Follow-Up 0.90 0.89 0.16 -1.64 2.03 Control3 Pre 0.89 0.91 0.14 -1.76 3.06 -0.01 Post 0.89 0.91 0.16 -2.82 11.49 0.16 Follow-Up 0.92 0.93 0.12 -2.29 5.76 YSCS Anytown Pre 41.90 41.73 6.08 -0.29 -0.15 0.71 Post 46.22 45.82 5.33 -0.34 -0.32 0.17 Follow-Up 46.99 46.73 5.19 -0.21 -0.62 Control Pre 40.59 40.75 4.85 -0.18 -0.56 0.28 Post 41.79 42.17 5.33 -0.06 0.74 -0.21 Follow-Up 40.80 41.04 5.19 0.02 -0.36 YDAS Anytown Pre 38.07 37.62 5.03 -0.43 0.05 0.51 Post 40.70 40.21 5.03 -0.60 -0.61 0.03 Follow-Up 40.62 40.36 4.70 -0.55 -0.61 Control Pre 37.39 37.81 4.56 -0.47 0.23 -0.26 Post 36.17 36.63 4.68 -0.12 0.02 0.14 Follow-Up 37.04 37.28 4.73 -0.18 0.22 YSRS Anytown Pre 111.17 109.84 15.55 0.00 -0.78 0.57 Post 119.93 118.13 13.41 -0.68 -0.37 -0.60 Follow-Up 111.12 110.19 12.92 -0.22 -0.68 Control Pre 111.00 112.24 12.40 -0.03 -0.12 -0.25 Post 107.28 108.97 13.29 -0.21 -0.54 0.17 Follow-Up 110.32 111.19 13.02 -0.06 -0.41 YII4 Anytown5 Pre 40.35 39.14 20.50 0.39 0.30 0.57 Follow-Up 52.77 51.77 23.46 0.36 -0.56 Control6 Pre 41.90 42.94 18.35 0.32 -0.17 0.04 Follow-Up 42.89 43.75 19.08 0.52 0.65 Note. 1 = Estimated Marginal Means were computed using free/reduced lunch and GPA as covariates 2 = Experimental/Anytown group N = 90 3 = Control group N = 96 4 = The YII was evaluated separately since a postsurvey was not administered. 5 = YII for Anytown group N = 90 6 = YII for Control group N = 104

PAGE 83

74 a = Effect size was calculated using Cohen’s d ( Mpost – Mpre) / sp b = Effect size was calculated using Cohen’s d ( Mfollow-up – Mpost) / sp points in time on one measure (YII). Descriptiv e statistics for the pre-, post-, and followup surveys are presented in Table 11. The score distributions for the YSCS, YDAS, YSRS, and YII had skewness and kurtosis valu es between -1 and +1 suggesting roughly normal distributions. In contra st, the distributions for the DDT were extremely negatively skewed and leptokurtic which indicated the adolescents’ typically obtained high scores on this test of discriminatory knowledge. Also, comparison of the DDT standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis values in dicated there was great er score variability within the Anytown group than the control group. Also, perusal of Table 11 reveals sample means which were different across groups. Assumptions. To suggest these differences would be found in the population, chance must be ruled out as a plausible expl anation for the observed sample differences. To assess the tenability of a chance explan ation, a repeated measures MANCOVA was conducted with an alpha level set to .05 for each effect. The degree to which the Type I error rates are actually contro lled to the specified alpha depends on how adequately the data meet the assumptions of independence, multivariate normality, homogeneity of covariance, and sphericity. First, the participants completed th e surveys separately, therefore, the observations were considered independent. Seco nd, a review of the Shapiro-Wilk test for univariate normality indicated there were violations to the multivariate normality assumption. The scores were not normally dist ributed for the Anytown or control group

PAGE 84

75 on any of the DDT measures (see Table 12) or for the Anytown group on the post-YSCS, post-YSRS, and the postand follow-up YDAS. However, given the relatively large sample sizes (Anytown N = 90; control N = 96), MANCOVA was considered robust to violations of multivariate normality. Table 12 – Hypothesis One: Shapiro-Wilk Tests of Univariate Normality Shapiro-Wilk Measure Group Statistic df p -value PREDDT Anytown 0.85 90 0.00 Control 0.71 96 0.00 PSTDDT Anytown 0.61 90 0.00 Control 0.64 96 0.00 FUDDT Anytown 0.71 90 0.00 Control 0.63 96 0.00 PREYSCS Anytown 0.99 90 0.64 Control 0.98 96 0.19 PSTYSCS Anytown 0.97 90 0.03 Control 0.98 96 0.10 FUYSCS Anytown 0.98 90 0.15 Control 0.99 96 0.79 PREYDAS Anytown 0.97 90 0.07 Control 0.98 96 0.07 PSTYDAS Anytown 0.93 90 0.00 Control 0.99 96 0.65 FUYDAS Anytown 0.95 90 0.00 Control 0.99 96 0.47 PREYSRS Anytown 0.98 90 0.19 Control 0.99 96 0.85 PSTYSRS Anytown 0.94 90 0.00 Control 0.98 96 0.11 FUYSRS Anytown 0.98 90 0.11 Control 0.99 96 0.66 PREYII Anytown 0.98 90 0.26 Control 0.98 104 0.22 FUYII Anytown 0.98 90 0.08 Control 0.98 104 0.06

PAGE 85

76 Next, Box’s M and the Levene Statistics were used to assess the homogeneity of covariance matrices assumption. Results of B ox’s M indicated the covariance matrices significantly differed for the DDT, YSCS, YDAS, YSRS, F (78, 106000) = 2.51, p < .01 as well as the YII F (3, 200000) = 5.95, p < .01. Levene’s homogeneity of variance univariate tests revealed viol ations to equality of vari ances on the presurvey DDT. Finally, to control for violations to the sphericity assumption, the Huynh-Feldt method was used which adjusts the degrees of freedom for within subject effects. Although there were violations to the assumptions, due to the large sample sizes and balanced design, MANCOVA was considered robust to these viol ations, and it was considered appropriate to proceed with the repeated measure MANC OVA. Additionally, prel iminary analyses of the four covariates (grade, race/ethnicity, grade-point average, and eligibility for free reduced lunch) with the dependent variab les per group over time were conducted to assess if significant interactions existed wh ich would contribute to between or within error variance. These analyses revealed there were no statistically significant interactions. Multivariate Analyses. A one between and one within repeated measure MANCOVA was conducted to evaluate the cha nge scores of the groups on the dependent variables. Group (Anytown and control) was entered into the m odel as the between subject factor. Time served as the within subj ect factor and data we re collected at three points in time for the DDT, YSCS, YDAS, and YSRS and at two time points for the YII. Since YII data were collected at two points, this analys is was conducted separately. Additionally, since random assignment to groups was not possible and the groups

PAGE 86

77 differed in proportion of grade level, race/ethnicity, eligib ility to receive free/reduced lunch as well as on their grade-point aver ages, these were entered as covariates. The overall test of the model (group x time measures included the DDT, YSCS, YDAS, and YSRS) was statistica lly significant (see Table 13) as well as for the YII. On the YII, there was a significant di fference between the groups over time F (1, 188) = .90, p < .01 (see Table 14). Table 13 – Multivariate Analyses of Anytown Participation with the Dependent Variables (DDT, YSCS, YDAS, YSRS). Within / Between Subjects Effects df error df Wilk’s lambda F -value p -value Time x Group1 8 173 .550 17.70 .00* Time 8 173 .948 1.19 .31 Group 4 177 .792 11.59 .00* Grade 4 177 .968 1.44 .222 Race/ethnicity 4 177 .877 6.21 .00* Eligibility for free/reduced lunch 4 177 .962 1.74 .143 Grade-point average 4 177 .864 6.94 .075 Note. 1 = Group: Anytown or control p -values < .05 were considered significant Table 14 – Multivariate Analyses of Anytown Participati on with the YII. Effect df error df Wilk’s lambda F -value p -value Time x Group1 1 188 .904 19.91 .00* Time 1 188 1.00 .030 .86 Group 1 188 2.36 .13 Note. 1 = Group: Anytown or control p -values < .05 were considered significant Also, since the experimental group was a subset of the adolescents who attended the Anytown program and chi-square analys es revealed there were no significant proportional differences on any of the dem ographic variables, a repeated measure

PAGE 87

78 MANOVA was conducted to determine if th e subset group of adolescents’ scores statistically significantly di ffered from the original group. There was not an overall significant difference between the groups over time on the measures F (4, 238) = 1.21, p = .31 nor simply between the groups F (4, 238) = .114, p = .98. However, there was a significant effect for time. Follow-up analyses revealed there were significant increases from preto post-survey completion on all of the measures regardless of being included in the original sample or subset. Therefore, these results suggested the subset of Anytown participants were a representative sample of the original group. Follow-Up Analyses. For the follow-up analyses, a Bonferroni adjustment was applied to an alpha of .05 which indicated a pvalue of .01 was needed to establish statistical significance. Also, to compensate fo r any possible violations of sphericity, the F -test statistics with Huynh-Feldt adjustment s were used to interp ret the within-subjects univariate tests. Univariate analyses were conducted to establish on which measures the change scores differed significantly using the fo llowing interaction term: time by group. There were statistically significant differences between the groups on all of the measures over time (see Table 15). Table 15 –The Univariate Effects of Inte ractions on the DDT, YSCS, YDAS, and YSRS Univariate Analysis / Measure df error df F -Value1 p -value Time x Group DDT 2 360 15.41 0.00* YSCS 2 360 22.14 0.00* YDAS 2 360 22.67 0.00* YSRS 2 360 29.80 0.00* Note. 1 = F -test statistics with Huynh-Feldt adjustments p -values < .01 were considered significant

PAGE 88

79 The group by time repeated measure contra st indicated there were significantly different change scores between the Anytow n and control groups on all of the measures (see Table 16). On the DDT, YSCS, YDAS, and YII, there were statistically significant increased change scores from the preto pos tsurvey. Analyses of the estimated marginal means indicated the Anytown group’s scores increased significantly more than the control group and these increases mainta ined over time (see Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4). Additionally, these change scores demonstrated practic al significance as medium effect sizes were observed which ra nged from .51 to .71 (see Table 11). Table 16 – Repeated Measures Contrasts Analyzing the Significance of the Change Scores between the Anytown and Control Group over Time Measure df error df F-Value p -value DDT Pre to Post 1 180 27.11 0.00* Post to Follow-up 1 180 2.04 0.16 YSCS Pre to Post 1 180 16.07 0.00* Post to Follow-up 1 180 5.70 0.02 YDAS Pre to Post 1 180 39.56 0.00* Post to Follow-up 1 180 2.70 0.10 YSRS Pre to Post 1 180 43.95 0.00* Post to Follow-up 1 180 43.76 0.00* Note. p -values < .01 were considered significant Further analyses of the groups estimated ma rginal mean scores revealed important findings. First, on the DDT, the Anytown group demonstrated a statis tically significant change F (1, 180) = 27.11, p < .01 from preto postsu rvey. This indicated participation in the Anytown program had a positive impact on this group’s knowledge of discriminatory terms (see Figure 1). Their mean DDT scores increased from 77% to 90% with a medium effect size of .62, and this increase was observed over time. The control group consistently performed well on the DDT measure and obtained a mean of at least 89%.

PAGE 89

80 Definitions of Discriminatory Terms* 40% 60% 80% 100% TimePercent Correct Anytown Control Anytown 0.770.910.90 Control 0.890.890.92 PrePostFollow-Up EstimatedMarginalmeansareprovided. Figure 1: Knowledge of Discrimi natory Terms by Group over Time Youth Social Competence Scale* 16 24 32 40 48 56 TimeScore Anytown Control Anytown 41.9046.2246.99 Control 40.5941.7940.80 PrePostFollow-Up* Estimated marginal means are provided. Figure 2. Youth Social Competence Scale by Group over Time

PAGE 90

81 Youth Diversity Acceptance Scale* 10 20 30 40 50 TimeScore Anytown Control Anytown 38.0740.7040.62 Contro l 37.3936.1737.04 PrePostFollow-Up Estimated marginal means are provided. Figure 3. Youth Diversity Acceptance Scale by Group over Time Youth Inventory of Involvement* 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 TimeScore Anytown Control Anytown 40.3552.77 Control 41.9042.89 PreFollow-Up Estimated marginal means are provided. Figure 4. Youth Inventory of Involvement by Group over Time

PAGE 91

82 Youth Social Responsibility Scale* 65 85 105 125 145 TimeScore Anytown Control Anytown 111.17119.93111.12 Contro l 111.00107.28110.32 PrePostFollow-Up Estimated marginal means are provided. Figure 5. Youth Social Responsibil ity Scale by Group over Time Next, on the presurvey YSCS, YDAS, and YSRS, the Anytown and control groups demonstrated similar estimated marg inal mean scores (e.g., Anytown pre-YSCS est. x = 41.90; control pre-YSCS est. x = 40.59). At postsurvey, the Anytown group demonstrated a statistically significant incr eased change in their feelings of social competence, social responsibility, and accep tance of diversity. Also, these changes maintained over time in the areas of soci al competence and acceptance of diversity. However, at follow-up, the Anytown group de monstrated a statistically significant decreased change score on the YSRS F (1, 180) = 43.76, p < .01 to approximately the presurvey level (see Table 16 and Figure 5).

PAGE 92

83 Finally, on the YII (see Figur e 4), the Anytown group demo nstrated a statistically significant increase in community involvement F (1, 188) = 19.91, p < .01. The Anytown group’s estimated marginal mean score incr eased from 40.35 to 52.77 compared to the control group preand follow-up survey scores of 41.90 and 42.89, respectively. Also, a medium effect size of .57 indicated this cha nge had practical significance (see Table 11). In summary, hypothesis one was supporte d as adolescents who attended the Anytown diversity awareness program demonstr ated significantly greater change on the dependent variables than th e control group. After attendi ng the Anytown program, the adolescents demonstrated si gnificant increases in their knowledge of discriminatory terms, feelings of social competence, acceptance of diversity, and community involvement. Although they initially demonstrat ed an increase in feelings of social responsibility, this change di d not persist over time. These data suggested the Anytown program positively impacted the adolescents who attended. Hypothesis Two Females who attend the Anytown program will demonstrate a greater increase in their social competence, acceptance of diversit y, feelings of social responsibility, and community involvement when compared to males who attend the program. These variables were assessed using the YDAS, YS RS, and YII, respectively. This hypothesis was not supported. Although females did not de monstrate greater change scores than males, there were significan t findings between the groups. A review of the Anytown group partic ipants’ demographi c characteristics indicated more females (n = 63) attended the diversity awareness program than males (n

PAGE 93

84 = 36) and roughly equivalent ra cial/ethnic backgrounds were re presented (see Table 17). Proportionally, fewer females were eligible fo r free/reduced lunch than males. Females were more involved in school multicultural committees and reported higher grade point averages (70% of the females reported a 3.0 or higher compared to 53% of males). However, chi-square analyses were conducte d and it was determined these proportional differences were not statistically significant (see Table 18). The pre-, post-, and follow -up scores for the males and females who attended are presented in Table 19. Perusal of these scores indicated th e genders responded differently. To rule out thes e differences were not a result of chance, a gender by time repeated measures MANOVA was conducted wi th an alpha level set to .05 for each effect. However, to ensure the Type I error ra te is controlled for at the specified level the data were reviewed to assess how well the assumptions were met. Assumptions: First, the study participants co mpleted the surveys independently. Second, a review of the Shapiro-Wilk test of univariate normality indicated there were violations to the multivariate normality assumption (see Table 20). For most measures, the skewness and kurtosis values ranged from -1 to +1 indicating roughly normal distributions. However, for females, the di stributions for the postand follow-up YDAS scores and post-YSRS scores were negatively skewed indicating high scores. In contrast, males’ scores on the pre-YSRS as well as the preand follow-up YII were positively skewed and leptokurtic indicating low scor es. Next, the Homogeneity of covariance assumption was investigated. Comparis on of the overall male and female variance/covariance matrices using Box’s M test indicated there was not a statistically

PAGE 94

85 Table 17 – Anytown Group Participants’ Demographic Characteristics by Gender Demographic Characteristics Categories Male Male % Female Female % Total 9th 11 30.56% 24 38.10% 35 10th 13 36.11% 17 26.98% 30 11th 9 25.00% 14 22.22% 23 12th 3 8.33% 8 12.70% 11 Missing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 Grade Total 36 100.00% 63 100.00% 99 White 9 25.00% 17 26.98% 26 Black 18 50.00% 28 44.44% 46 Hispanic/Latino 4 11.11% 11 17.46% 15 Native American 2 5.56% 1 1.59% 3 Asian/Pacific Islander 1 2.78% 0 0.00% 1 NonWhite/Other 2 5.56% 6 9.52% 8 Missing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 Race/ Ethnicity Total 36 100.00% 63 100.00% 99 Christian 27 75.00% 44 69.84% 71 Jewish 0 0.00% 3 4.76% 3 Muslim 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 Buddhist 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 Other 9 25.00% 14 22.22% 23 Missing 0 0.00% 2 3.17% 2 Religion Total 36 100.00% 63 100.00% 99 Yes 16 44.44% 21 33.33% 37 No 12 33.33% 26 41.27% 38 Unsure 7 19.44% 15 23.81% 22 Missing 1 2.78% 1 1.59% 2 Eligibility for Free/Reduced Lunch Total 36 100.00% 63 100.00% 99 Yes 5 13.89% 20 31.75% 25 No 28 77.78% 41 65.08% 69 Missing 3 8.33% 2 3.17% 5 Multicultural/Stu dent Advisory Committee Total 36 100.00% 63 100.00% 99 less than .9 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 1.0 to 1.9 3 8.33% 2 3.17% 5 2.0 to 2.9 12 33.33% 10 15.87% 22 3.0 to 3.9 12 33.33% 36 57.14% 48 4.0 or above 7 19.44% 8 12.70% 15 Missing 2 5.56% 7 11.11% 9 GPA Total 36 100.00% 63 100.00% 99

PAGE 95

86 Table 18 – Chi-Square Analyses of the Anyt own Groups’ Demographic Characteristics Gender1 Characteristic df N 2 p-value* Grade 3 99 1.47 0.69 Race/Ethnicity 5 99 4.18 0.52 Religion 2 97 1.84 0.40 Eligibility for Free/Reduced Lunch 2 97 1.33 0.51 Multicultural Committee 1 94 3.41 0.07 Grade Point Average 3 90 7.52 0.06 Note. 1 = Male and Female were coded as 1 and 2, respectively p-values < .05 were considered significant Table 19 – Anytown Group Pre-, Post-, and Follow-Up YSCS, YDAS, and YSRS Scores N Est. Mean1 M sd sk k Cohen’s d YSCS Male Pre 36 39.86 39.86 5.75 0.02 0.26 -0.74 Post 36 44.11 44.11 5.67 -0.24 -0.34 -0.29 Follow-Up 36 45.72 45.72 5.62 -0.06 -1.09 Female Pre 63 42.52 42.52 5.91 -0.40 -0.05 -0.53 Post 63 46.59 45.38 4.78 -0.16 -0.70 -0.39 Follow-Up 63 47.22 47.22 4.70 -0.19 -0.19 YDAS Male Pre 36 35.75 35.75 5.75 -0.02 -0.32 -0.41 Post 36 37.97 37.97 5.14 -0.14 -1.20 -0.18 Follow-Up 36 38.89 38.89 5.04 -0.34 -1.05 Female Pre 63 38.60 38.60 4.37 -0.63 0.84 -0.61 Post 63 41.27 41.27 4.35 -0.70 0.02 0.10 Follow-Up 63 40.83 40.83 4.32 -0.45 -0.63 YSRS Male Pre 36 102.11 102.11 14.96 0.74 0.13 -0.70 Post 36 112.42 112.42 14.28 -0.12 -0.70 0.44 Follow-Up 36 106.50 106.50 12.76 0.07 -0.69 Female Pre 63 112.94 112.94 13.95 -0.10 -0.44 -0.61 Post 63 120.92 120.92 11.94 -0.95 0.18 0.71 Follow-Up 63 112.38 112.38 11.99 -0.36 -0.26 YII Male Pre 36 34.61 34.61 22.25 0.87 1.74 -0.43 Follow-Up 36 44.94 44.94 25.43 0.86 0.35 Female Pre 63 40.98 40.98 18.81 0.05 -0.38 -0.71 Follow-Up 63 55.16 55.16 21.06 0.16 -0.80

PAGE 96

87 Table 20 – Hypothesis Two: Shapiro-Wilk Tests of Univariate Normality Shapiro-Wilk Gender Statistic df p -value* PRESC male 0.97 36.00 0.53 female 0.97 63.00 0.20 PSTSC male 0.98 36.00 0.67 female 0.97 63.00 0.07 FUSC male 0.95 36.00 0.11 female 0.98 63.00 0.48 PREDA male 0.97 36.00 0.51 female 0.97 63.00 0.10 PSTDA male 0.95 36.00 0.08 female 0.94 63.00 0.00* FUDA male 0.94 36.00 0.06 female 0.96 63.00 0.02* PRESR male 0.93 36.00 0.03* female 0.99 63.00 0.76 PSTSR male 0.96 36.00 0.19 female 0.91 63.00 0.00* FUSR male 0.98 36.00 0.80 female 0.98 63.00 0.27 PREYII male 0.93 36.00 0.02* female 0.99 63.00 0.71 FUYII male 0.94 36.00 0.04* female 0.98 63.00 0.33 Note. p-values < .05 were considered significant significant difference ( F = 1.123, p = .26). Also, to control for possible violations to the sphericity assumption, the Huynh-Feldt method wa s used to adjust univariate test results. Multivariate Analyses. A gender by time repeated measure MANOVA was conducted to evaluate the change scores of the Anytown males and females on the YSCS, YDAS, YSRS, and YII. However, since data we re collected at only two points in time for the YII, a separate MANOVA was conducted. Th e time by gender intera ction on the four

PAGE 97

88 measures was not statistically significant nor was it for the YII (see Tables 21 and 22). However, there were main effects for time and gender. Table 21 –The Effects of Gender on the Dependent Variables: YSCS, YDAS, YSRS Measures Included YSCS, YDAS, YSRS df N Wilk’s Lambda F-Value P-value Time Gender 6 92 0.96 0.71 0.64 Gender 6 92 0.87 4.87 0.00* Time 6 92 0.43 20.64 0.00* Note. pvalues < .05 were considered significant Table 22 –The Effects of Gender on the Dependent Variable: YII Measure Included YII df N F-Value p -value Time Gender 1 97 0.84 0.36 Gender 1 97 4.38 0.04* Time 1 97 34.11 0.00* Note. pvalues < .05 were considered significant Follow-Up Analyses. The main effect for gender was st atistically significant at the .05 level indicating differences between males and females on these measures were likely to occur in the larger popul ation of Anytown participan ts. Further analyses were conducted to determine on which measures fema les scored higher than males. To control for Type I errors, after making a Bonferroni adjustment, alpha was set to .01. Females scored statistically significantly higher on the YSCS, YDAS, and YSRS than males but not on the YII (see Table 23). Figure 6 illust rates the estimated marginal means per gender and measure.

PAGE 98

89 The main effect for time also was sta tistically significant at the .05 level. However, this effect was addressed in hypot heses one and the results were of greater interest since the time effect was compared to a control group. Table 23 – Tests of Between Subject Contrasts for Gender Measure df N FValue P-value YSCS 1 97 5.865 .017* YDAS 1 97 10.230 .002* YSRS 1 97 14.262 .000* YII 1 97 4.378 .039 Note. p -values < .01 were considered significant due to the Bonferroni adjustment Exp Group Estimated Marginal Means by Gender and Measure0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 MeasureScore Male Female Male 43.2337.54107.0139.78 Female 45.5640.23115.4148.07 YSCSYDASYSRSYII Figure 6. Anytown Group Estimated Marg inal Means by Gender and Measure

PAGE 99

90 In conclusion, hypothesis two was not s upported. After attending the Anytown program, females did not demonstrate a grea ter increase in their social competence, acceptance of diversity, feelings of social re sponsibility, or community involvement than males. However, females reported statistically significantly higher sc ores than males in the areas of social competence, acceptance of diversity, and social responsibility. Hypothesis Three After attending the Anytown diversity awareness program, adolescents with different racial/ethnic backgrounds will be more similar in their acceptance of others and feelings of social responsibility. These variables were measured using the YDAS and YSRS, respectively. This hypothesis was not su pported, however, there were significant results. The race/ethnic backgrounds of the Anytown group were 46% Black, 26% White, 15% Hispanic/Latino, and 12% identified themselves as Native American (n =3), Asian/Pacific Islander (n = 2) or self-selected the categor y “Other” (n = 8) (see Table 17). Chi-square analyses were conducted to determine if the race/ethnic groups statistically significantly di ffered in proportion of males and females, grade level, eligibility for free/reduced lunch, grade-poi nt average, and religion. A significant difference between the groups was observed in the area of religion 2 (3, 99) = 17.97, p < .00. Therefore, religion was entered into the analyses as a covariate. The pre-, post-, and follow-up YDAS and YSRS scores for the different race/ethnic groups are presented in Table 24. Perusal of these scores indicated there were differences between the groups as well as over time. To rule out these differences were

PAGE 100

91 Table 24 – Descriptive Statistics for YS CS and YDAS for Anytown Participants by Race/Ethnicity. Race/Ethnicity N M sd sk k M sd sk k Cohen’s d1 PRE YSRS POST YSRS White 26 108.89 14.94 0.28 -0.33 120.31 12.96 -0.90 0.08 0.13 Black 46 105.67 15.81 0.35 -0.72 113.41 14.28 -0.30 -0.94 0.10 Hispanic / Latino 15 114.93 12.80 0.57 -0.24 125.60 9.34 -0.72 -0.03 0.12 Other 12 114.58 13.65 -0.96 0.64 119.67 9.71 -0.37 -1.09 0.06 PRE YDAS POST YDAS White 26 37.00 5.58 -0.65 0.52 41.58 4.05 -1.12 1.33 0.16 Black 46 35.94 4.80 -0.03 0.34 37.63 4.88 -0.05 -1.14 0.06 Hispanic / Latino 15 41.20 3.17 -0.35 -1.11 42.73 3.43 -0.97 2.01 0.05 Other 12 40.50 3.61 -0.89 -0.08 42.83 3.93 -0.35 -0.19 0.08 FOLLOW-UP YSRS White 26 110.00 15.16 -0.24 -0.76 -0.02 Black 46 107.70 11.20 -0.09 -0.49 -0.01 Hispanic / Latino 15 114.20 12.83 -0.37 -1.11 -0.02 Other 12 115.58 8.69 -0.22 -0.12 -0.01 FOLLOW-UP YDAS Cohen’s d2 White 26 40.65 4.45 -0.54 -0.71 0.00 Black 46 38.35 4.86 -0.01 -0.90 0.00 Hispanic / Latino 15 42.40 3.36 -1.06 1.63 0.00 Other 12 42.92 2.91 -0.14 -0.34 0.00 Note. 1 – Effect size was calculated using Cohen’s d ( Mpost – Mpre) / sp 2 – Effect size was calculated using Cohen’s d ( Mfollow-up – Mpost) / sp

PAGE 101

92 not a result of chance, a r ace/ethnic group by time repeat ed measures MANCOVA was conducted with an alpha level set to .05 for each effect. However, to ensure the Type I error rate is controlled for at the specified le vel the data were revi ewed to assess how well the assumptions were met. Assumptions. First, the surveys were comple ted independently, therefore the independence assumption was considered not violated. Second, univariate normality was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Violations to normality were observed on the postYSRS and YDAS for the White group (Shapiro Wilk = .91 p = .03 and .899 p = .02, respectively). Next, Box’s M test indicated there was not a significant difference between the covariance matrices F (63, 5776) = 1.16, p = .18 of the overall model. However, Levene’s homogeneity of variance univariate test for the measures indicated there were violations to this assumption on the postand follow-up YDAS { F (3, 95) = 2.86, p = .04; F (3, 95) = 3.81, p = .01, respectively}. Finally, to contro l for violations to the sphericity assumption, the Huynh-Feldt method was used. Multivariate and Follow-Up Analyses. A one between and one within repeated measures MANCOVA was conducte d to evaluate the change scores of the different race/ethnic groups on the YSCS and YDAS. R ace/ethnicity had four levels White, Black, Hispanic/Latino, and NonWhite /Other. NonWhite/Other was used for adolescents who either self-selected Other, Native American, or Asian/Pacific Islander. Time was used for the within group factor (pre, post, and follow-up). Religion was entered as a covariate. Also, for the follow-up analyses, a Bonferroni adjustment was applied to an alpha of .05 which indicated a pvalue of .025 was needed to esta blish statistica l significance.

PAGE 102

93 Table 25 – Multivariate Analyses of the Re lationship between Race/ Ethnicity on the YSRS and YDAS over Time Measures Included YSRS, YDAS df N Wilk’s Lambda F-Value P-value Time Race/Ethnicity 12 241 0.87 1.08 0.38 Race/Ethnicity 6 186 0.78 4.08 0.00* Time 4 91 0.76 7.10 0.00* Note. p -values < .05 were considered significant The interaction (race/ethnicity x time) was not statistically significant = .87, F (12, 241) = 1.08, p = .38 (see Table 25). However, the main effects for race/ethnicity and time were significant. Between the groups there were significant differences on the YSRS F (3, 94) = 3.47, p < .01 and the YDAS F (3, 94) = 8.61, p < .01. On the YSRS, Hispanic/Latino adolescents obtained the hi ghest estimated marginal mean scores ( M = 118.29) which were considered statistically significantly higher than the Black adolescents’ scores ( M = 108.82) ( MH/L – MB = 9.47, p = .03). (see Figure 7). On the YDAS, adolescents in the NonWhite/Other and the Hispanic/Latino groups reported statistically significantly hi gher scores on the YDAS than the Black adolescents ( MOther – MB = 4.756, p = .001, and MH/L – MB = 4.772, p = .000) The White adolescents’ scores were in between and did not significantly di ffer from the other race/ethnic groups (see Figure 8).

PAGE 103

94 Anytown Participants' YSRS Scores* by Race/Ethnicity 113.24 108.82 118.29 116.6 100 105 110 115 120 125 WhiteBlackHispanic / Latino Nonwhite/ OtherScor e ** Estimated marginal means are provided. ** Actual scale range is 29 to 145. Figure 7. Anytown Participants’ YS RS Scores by Race/Ethnicity Anytown Participants' YDAS Scores* by Race/Ethnicity 39.704 37.329 42.101 42.085 35 40 45 WhiteBlackHispanic / Latino Nonwhite/ OtherScor e ** Estimated marginal means are provided. ** Actual scale range is 12 to 48 Figure 8. Anytown Participants’ YD AS Scores by Race/Ethnicity

PAGE 104

95 The main effect for time also was signifi cant (see Table 26). As described in the analyses section for hypothesi s one, there were statistica lly significant increases on the YDAS and YSRS from the preto postsurvey and a significant decrease from postto follow-up survey on the YSRS (Figures 3 and 5, respectively). In summary, hypothesis three was not supported. The main effect for time indicated there were overall changes in the adolescents’ YSRS and YDAS scores. However, the between subjects analysis indica ted the adolescents’ scores slightly varied by race/ethnic background. Hypothesis Four Parents of adolescents who attend the Anytown diversity awareness program will report a significant increase in their percepti ons of their children’s social competence and community involvement when compared to pa rents of a similar gr oup of adolescents who did not attend the program. Results from the Parent Perceptions of Youth Social Competence Survey (PP-YSCS) and the Pa rent Perceptions of Youth Inventory Involvement (PP-YII) were used to inves tigate this hypothesis. This hypothesis was partially supported. The response rate for the Anytown and control Parent groups was limited. Of the 392 surveys mailed to parents of Anytown pa rticipants, 6% returned (n = 23) the presurvey and 8% (n = 27) re turned the postsurvey. Of thes e surveys, one preand two postsurveys had missing data and were not included in the an alyses. None of the parents who returned the presurvey also complete d the postsurvey. Of the 125 control group parents asked to complete the presurvey, 33 were returned. Due to the limited response

PAGE 105

96 rates and nonmatching preand postsurve ys, a MANCOVA was c onducted using parent education level and eligibility for fr ee/reduced lunch as covariates. Assumptions. The pre-, post-, and follow-up scores for the Anytown and control groups are presented in Table 26. First, the parents completed the surveys independently, therefore, the independence assumption was not considered violat ed. Second, univariate normality was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk tests and violations were observed on the control group PP-YSCS and PP-YII F (33, 80) = .88 and .91, pvalues < .01, respectively. A review of the kurtosis and skewness values indicated the control PP-YSCS scores were generally high with many outliers, and the scores on the control PP-YII were generally low. These results indicated the multivariat e normality assumption was violated. Finally, Box’s M test of equality of covariance matr ices indicated there was not a statistically significant difference F (6, 83728) = 2.01, p = .06. Due to the limited sample size, lack of random assignment to groups, and lack of repeated measures the MANCOVA was considered exploratory and the result s should be interpreted with caution.

PAGE 106

97 Table 26 – Descriptive Statistics for the Parent Pre-, Post, and Follow-Up Surveys. n Est.* M M sd sk k PP-YSCS Cont 33 62.75 62.97 9.85 -1.61 5.06 Anytown Pre 22 64.20 64.00 7.13 0.19 -0.64 Anytown Follow-Up 25 68.55 68.44 6.82 -0.24 -0.90 PP-YII Cont 33 38.17 37.24 26.54 0.84 -0.31 Anytown Pre 22 35.04 36.46 16.22 -0.15 -1.07 Anytown Follow-Up 25 55.18 55.16 22.55 -0.10 -0.51 Est = Estimated Marginal Mean Multivariate and Follow-Up Analyses. A one-way MANCOVA was performed on the two dependent measures. The one factor for group consisted of the Anytown parents at presurvey, the Anytown parents at posts urvey, and the control group parents. The analysis indicated there wa s a statistically significant difference between the groups F (4, 148) = .81, p = .02. Follow-up tests indicated ther e was a statistical ly significant difference between the groups on the PP-YII F (2, 80) = 5.35, p < .01, but not on the PPYSCS F (2, 80) = 3.14, p = .05 (a Bonferroni adjustment was applied indicating an alpha level of .025 was need to obtain statistical significance). Analys es of the estimated marginal means indicated the Anytown pa rents’ follow-up PP-YII scores were statistically significantly higher than the Anytown parents’ presurvey PP-YII scores ( Me M p follow-up – Me M p pre = 20.141, p = .012), but not the control parents presurvey scores ( Mexp follow-up – Mcont = 17.009, p = .034) (see Figure 9).

PAGE 107

98 Parents' Perceptions of Anytown and Control Group Adolescents Community Involvement on the PP-YII* 38.171 35.039 55.18 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 ControlAnytown PreAnytown Follow-upScore** Estimated marginal means are provided. ** Actual scale range is 0 to 150 Figure 9. Parents’ Perceptions of Anytow n and Control Group Adolescents’ Community Involvement on the PP-YII In summary, the exploratory analysis of hypothesis four suggested the parents of adolescents who attended the Anytown dive rsity awareness program observed greater amounts of community involvement than the parents of adolescents who had not gone through the program as well as the control group Also, since there was not a statistically significant difference between the Anytown pa rents who completed the presurvey on the PP-YII and the control group parents, it was cons idered tenable that participating in the Anytown program may affect an a dolescents’ community involvement.

PAGE 108

99 Chapter Five Discussion The purpose of this study was to investig ate the effects of participating in a leadership and diversity awareness program on adolescents’ attitude s and behaviors, as well as to investigate gender a nd racial differences among those adolescents. This chapter presents the results of this study and its imp lications, a review of the study limitations and recommendations for future research, and fina lly, a discussion of the contributions to the literature. Discussion of Results Hypothesis One Adolescents who attend the Anytown diversity awareness program will report a statistically significant incr ease in their: knowledge of discriminatory terms (DDT), social competence (YSCS), acceptance of others (YDAS), feelings of social responsibility (YSRS), and community involvement (YII) when compared to a similar group of adolescents who did not attend the program. This hypothesis was supported, and the resu lts indicated adoles cents who attended Anytown experienced positive changes in thei r attitudes and behaviors. Specifically, these adolescents were more likely to demons trate increased knowledge of discriminatory terms, social competence, acceptance of diversity, and community involvement when compared to adolescents who did not attend th e program. Also, analysis of the magnitude

PAGE 109

100 of the differences at the time of the signi ficant changes indicted the Anytown group’s increases were of practical significance with e ffect sizes of .62 for the DDT, .71 for the YSCS, .51 for the YDAS, and .57 for the YII (see Table 11). Additionally, as predicted, the Anytown group reported a significantly greater increase in their feelings of social res ponsibility immediately afte r attending the program when compared to the control group. Surprisi ngly, this increase did not maintain over time and returned to the same level observe d prior to attending the Anytown program (group means: presurvey = 110, postsurvey = 118, and follow-up survey = 110). Also, the scores between the Anytown and control gr oup were similar at follow-up (group means of 110 and 111, respectively). Overall comparison of the Anytown group to the control grou p on the variables indicated the adolescents who attended Anytown incr eased their knowledge of discriminatory terms, social competen ce, acceptance of diversity, and community involvement, and these changes maintained over time. Hypothesis Two Females who attend the Anytown program w ill demonstrate a greater increase in their social competence, acceptance of diversi ty, feelings of soci al responsibility, and community involvement when compared to males who attend the program. Although the second hypothesis was not supported, meaningful gender differences were observed. Consistent with pr evious studies, females scored significantly higher than males in the areas of social competence, diversity acceptance, and social responsibility (Byrnes & Kiger, 1988; Henrich, Blatt, Kuperminc, Zohar, & Leadbeater,

PAGE 110

101 2001). In the areas of social competence and diversity acceptance, the females obtained scores approximately two points higher than ma les. In the area of social responsibility, females scored approximately eight points high er than their male peers. Finally, although the result was not statistically significant, fe males’ community involvement scores were eight points higher than the males. Hypothesis Three After attending the Anytown diversity awareness program, adolescents with different racial/ethnic backgrounds will be more similar in their acceptance of others and feelings of social responsibility. This hypothesis was not supported. The groups did not become more similar in their acceptance of others or feelings of social responsib ility. Moreover, there were significant differences observed between the racial/ethnic groups. Specifically, the adolescents identified as Hispanic/Latino and Nonwhite/Other re ported significantly higher diversity acceptance scores than Bl ack adolescents. Scores on the diversity acceptance scale (YDAS) range from 12 to 48. Scores ranging from 36 to 48 indicate agreement to strong agreement to most it ems. The estimated mean of the Black adolescents was 37 whereas the estimated mean for both the Hispanic/Latino and Nonwhite/Other groups was 42. Other studies which investigated differences in acceptance by race/ethnic group were inconsistent with one another as well as with these findings (Cohen & Lotan, 1997; Johnson & Johnson, 1981; Stephan, 1978; Stephan & Finlay, 1999).

PAGE 111

102 Hypothesis Four Parents of adolescents who attend the Anytown diversity awareness program will report a significant increase in their percep tions of their children’s social competence and community involvement when compared to parents of a similar group of adolescents who did not attend the program. In partial support of this hypothesis, parents of adolescents who attended Anytown reported their children were more involved in the community than the parents of adolescents who had enrolled but not ye t attended the program. However, when comparing the ratings of parents of adolescen ts who attended Anytow n to the ratings of parents of the adolescents in the control group the means, although close to statistically different, were not ( p -value of .034 compared to a needed p -value of .025). On the PPYII, scores range from 0 to 140. The parent s of Anytown participants reported an estimated mean score of 55 compared to scor es of 38 for the control group and 35 for the parents of children yet to attend Anytown. These results provide some support that participating in the Anytown program may increase adolescent’s community involvement. It also was posited the parents of Anytow n participants would report higher social competence scores for their children. However, there was no significant difference between the three groups. The scores for th e PP-YSCS range from 20 to 80 which are obtained from endorsing responses on a 4-point scale (strongl y agree to strongly disagree). Agreement to all items yields a total score of 60. The three groups obtained average total scores ranging from 63 to 69 (see Table 26). This suggests the parents

PAGE 112

103 perceived their adolescents as socially co mpetent. Although this hypothesis was partially supported, due to the limited sample size and lack of repeated measures this analysis was considered exploratory and the result s should be interpreted cautiously. Implications Regardless of age, gender, and race/et hnic background, adolescents who attended the Anytown program were likely to lear n about discrimination and report increased acceptance of others and improved social co mpetence. Many adolescents also became more involved in their communities. These outcomes were in alignment with the objectives of the Anytown program and support the use of strategies such as cooperative learning, anti-racist education, discrimination-simulation exer cises, and discussion groups to decrease prejudice and discrimination. A surprising change was observed in th e adolescents’ feelings of social responsibility. After demonstra ting a significant increase in their feelings of social responsibility immediately afte r attending the program, approximately 10 months later, there was an overall decrease to baseline. Soci al responsibility refers to an individual’s sense of obligation to help those in the comm unity, nation, or societyat-large who are in need (Pancer & Pratt, 1999). It was cons idered plausible that after leaving the emotionally-charging program, adolescents’ en countered resistance from others, slightly negating their new found connection with society. It also was plausible that they simply did not integrate their new perceptions into th eir daily lives and re-i dentified exclusively with their immediate circle of family a nd friends. Also, although the NCCJ sponsors many other leadership and diversity awar eness programs, the adolescents are only

PAGE 113

104 required to document and report community i nvolvement if they plan to return as a counselor. Adolescents may leave Anytown a nd not take advantage of the resources available to foster these fee lings. Pancer and Pratt (1999) re ported adolescents with high social responsibility scores were more likely to be “part of a so cial environment that supported their volunteer activ ities” (p. 49). Although the adolescents reported high levels of diversity acceptance and the social sk ills necessary to promote it in society, they may feel less responsible for doing so, particul arly if it is not empha sized in their existing home, community, school, or social experiences. Previous studies reported females scored higher on diversity acceptance, social competence, and social responsibility meas ures than males (Byrnes & Kiger, 1988; Yates, 1999). These studies did not inves tigate the changes in males and females responses over time. For the present study, it was suggested the females’ scores would increase more than males. This was not observed. However, the results of this study (females scored higher) were consistent with the previous studies. Females were more accepting than males, expressed higher soci al competence, and feelings of social responsibility. Other studies demonstrated wo men were more likely to respond to social injustices from a relational perspective whereas males were more likely to apply principles of justice (Hardcastle, 1992). As cited by Byrnes and Kiger (1992), Grosskurth (1991) argued women were more sensitive to so cial injustices than males because they can relate to the harmful consequences of discrimination caused by sexism. Differences in acceptance of diversity also were present between the adolescents based on their race/ethnic background. Current research would suggest that members of

PAGE 114

105 minority groups are less likely to be accepti ng of diversity, because these groups are more likely to be targets of discrimina tion (DuBois, 1969; Oskamp, 2000; Stephan & Stephan, 2000). Of the four groups (White, Black, Hispanic/Latino, and Nonwhite/Other), the Black ra ce/ethnic group obtained the lo west diversity acceptance score. Although the mean total scores was st ill indicative of agreem ent to experiencing contact and comfort with member s of other groups, their scor es were significantly lower than the Hispanic/Latino and Nonwhite/Other groups. Existing research does not support one group is consistently more accepting than another race/ethnic group (Stephen, 1978; Stephan & Finlay, 1999). The cooperative learning liter ature demonstrated that cr oss-race friendships were affected by the number of members from one ’s own group available for association (Cohen & Lotan, 1997; Johnson & Johnson, 1981). The number of adolescents in this study from the Black race/ethnic group was gr eater than all other categories combined (46 vs. 44, respectively). The Black adolescents may have interacted more with their own race/ethnic group during the Anytown experience as well as afterwards. Additionally, the YDAS assesses contact as well as comfort in teracting with other groups. The possible reduced opportunities for inte rgroup contact may suggest why their scores remained lower than the other groups. Differences between the groups on this measure suggest sustained intergroup contact may be necessa ry to increase the nu mber of cross-race friendships and/or overcome the intergroup anxi ety that is experienced as a result of actual or perceived discrimination.

PAGE 115

106 These findings also can be used to conduc t a formative evaluation of the Anytown program. NCCJ personnel may consider using th ese results to modify the curriculum and develop strategies to improve the attitude s and behaviors of males as well as Black adolescents. Additionally, to maintain impr oved attitudes, NCCJ personnel may want to assess their community outreach efforts to as certain how more can be done within and between schools and communities. Community and education leaders are en couraged to consider these outcomes when developing new policies or when deci ding to fund new projects. Over time, a program that decreases prejudice attitudes and increases volunteerism may positively impact schools and communities. Improved intergroup relations could reduce biasmotivated crimes, increase industry, and d ecrease the reliance on outsourcing some community projects by accessing volunteers. Additionally, cooperative efforts between impoverished communities and moderate or a ffluent communities c ould significantly and positively effect the economic situation at the local and possibly state level. Communities with higher crime rates, subs tance abuse, and unemployment often rely on a limited tax base as well as resources. Therefore, these problems become institutionalized resulting in repeated generations of people confronted w ith obstacles to attaining educational and employment success. Cooperative efforts which go beyond funding integrated schooling and transportation services, should include in ter-community programs to increase adults’ reliance on inter-community involvement.

PAGE 116

107 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research Despite the large sample size, number of variables investigated, and number of observations involved in data collection, there were severa l limitations to this study which could be improved upon in future resear ch. First, although the participants were encouraged to respond honestly and informed that their responses were confidential, as always in survey research, there was a risk that participants provided socially desirable responses (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). Therefore, it is important to get a sample of actual behavior before and after adolescents participate in a prejudice reduction program. Observations of adolescents who witn ess discrimination through discrimination simulation experimentation prior to and after attending a prejudice reduction program would capture changes in actual behavior rather than relying on self-re port data to draw inferences about program effectiveness. In addition, obtaining information about actual types and levels of community involvement during follow-up would add veracity to the rating indices. Second, random assignment to groups was not an option for this investigation. Although measures were taken to reduce betw een group error variance by controlling for proportional demographic diffe rences, stronger conclusions can be made from pure experimental research. The students who a ttended the Anytown program possibly were more interested in learning about leadership sk ills and social issues than the adolescents who did not attend the program. Planning fo r a counterbalanced experimental design within two or more schools in communities with different racial/ethnic compositions would provide meaningful information. Trends could be establishe d and varying needs

PAGE 117

108 for prejudice reduction programs identified. Fu ture researchers should consider how to increase involvement at the school and community level. Support from administrators and community leaders will increase the like lihood organizations will be permitted access to the adolescents. This support may also impact participation and lead to the development of more relevant, cost-effective, and immediate incentiv es (e.g., extra credit points, homework pass). Third, researchers should consider collecting additional data and conducting different analyses when assessing acceptan ce of diversity. Data pertaining to the adolescents’ cross-race relationships or e xperience as a target or perpetrator of discrimination were not collected. Since, firs t hand experience with intergroup contact is considered a predictor of diversity accepta nce; these inquiries may help unravel why gender and racial/ethnic differences exist. Future researchers also should consider investigating the impact of the Anytown program on adolescen ts who scored very low on the diversity acceptance measure. Performan ce on this variable may be related and possibly predictive of adolescents’ scores ove r time on the other attitudes and behaviors assessed: social competence, social res ponsibility, and community involvement. Fourth, the length of the program shoul d be considered. A week-long diversity awareness program held during the summer may be too great of a time commitment for some adolescents. The effects of this progr am should be compared to similar programs with a shorter duration. This t ype of an analysis would de monstrate the effects of the length of the program.

PAGE 118

109 Fifth, the length and order of the survey s also may have influenced responding. Since the surveys were on scantron forms, they were arranged in a predetermined order. Therefore, an order effect could have influe nced the adolescents’ responding. Also, when responding to the last few sections of the survey, some adolescents may have become fatigued and subsequently inattentive or disi nterested. To reduce the likelihood that order effects or survey length impacted responding, th e adolescents were encouraged to take a break if necessary. Future researchers cons idering the use of th e YSRS or YII should consider the appropriateness of using the a bbreviated versions available from Pancer (2000). Sixth, although the adolescents were asked to read the surveys independently, the need for reading assistance was monitored. The readability level of the survey was mid seventh grade. Reading a ssistance was provided on a one-on-one basis, and the adolescent’s responses were not shared with the reader. If an adol escent was unwilling to let the researcher know he/she needed reading assistance, then there was a possibility his/her responses could aff ect the outcomes of the study. However, adolescents who needed assistance usually completed the survey with an assistant or indicated they did not want to complete the survey. There was no penalty for not completing the survey. Since adolescents often are reluctant to admit havi ng reading difficulties, the need for reading assistance should be minimized during intr oductory comments. The investigator may prefer to focus on the adolescents’ dislike of reading and provide an option to complete the survey listening to an a udiotape in a separate location.

PAGE 119

110 Seventh, the test used to assess knowledge of discriminatory terms (DDT) was an eight-item multiple-choice test of terms such as racism, ageism, and sexism. Due to the limited range of scores, a ceiling effect was possible. Also, th e adolescents in the control group were enrolled in social studies courses which could have exposed them to the knowledge needed to demonstrate an increase on this test or practice effects may have impacted their performance. Regardless, diversity awareness programs designed to educate participants should develop a meas ure of knowledge acquisition which is unique and sensitive to the curriculum objectives. Finally, parent data coll ection could have been improved in two ways. First, parent participation was remarkably limited. It appears that the incentives offered were not appealing enough to r ecruit their support. In the future methods to administer surveys to the parents in a large group setting should be considered. For example, if parents must attend a meeting prior to their child attending a diversity awaren ess program, at that time, they could be asked to complete the surve y. Second, research demons trates a relationship between parenting style, community invol vement, and their children’s community involvement. In this study, pa renting style was not assesse d. In the future, researchers may consider analyzing parenting style, community involvement, and acceptance of diversity. Contributions to the Literature Prior to this study, a systematic analysis of the Anytown leadership and diversity awareness program was not available. The objectives of the Anytown program included increasing adolescents’ knowledge of discri mination and intolerance in our society,

PAGE 120

111 acceptance of diversity, social competence, social responsibility, and community involvement. This analysis was vital to ascer tain if the program objectives were met as well as lend additional support for the use of specific prejudice reduction intervention techniques. These results provide evidence for the e ffectiveness of the Anytown program and the methods used to reduce prejudice and build the social skills of adolescents. Allport (1954) and Dubois (1969) expl ained that intergroup contac t was not enough to overcome barriers that exist between groups. A coopera tive atmosphere where group members have equal status, opportunities for personalized acquaintance, and authority figures support this contact are essential ingredients in developing prejudice reduction programs. Diversity acceptance programs should ensure these elements exist. Passive exposure to diversity through multicultural education is unlikely to improve intergroup relations. Therefore, strategies such as cooperative l earning, prejudice reduc tion empathy training, and anti-racist discussion groups should be included in di versity awareness programs as well as educational settings when appropriate. The integration of these methods is very likely to increase intergroup acceptance a nd improve adolescents’ attitudes and behaviors. Ultimately, decreasing the number of intolerant crimes committed, reducing the pain experienced when victimized, and increasing the chances of creating a harmonious and accepting society.

PAGE 121

112 References Aboud, F. E., & Fenwick, V. (1999). E xploring and evaluating school-based interventions to reduce prejudice. Journal of Social Issues 55, 767-785. Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Ashby, N. (2001). Anytown community progra m changes Tampa youth from inside out. Community Update 89, 4-5. Banks, J. A. (1995). Multicultural Education: Its effects on student s’ racial and gender role attitudes. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 617-627). New York: McMillan. Bennett, C. (1990). Comprehensive multicultural education: Theory and practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Bigler, R. (1999). The use of multicultural curr icula and materials to counter racism in children Journal of Social Issues 55, 687-705. Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M.T., & Harv ey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African-Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77, 135-149. Breckheimer, S. E., & Nelson, R. O. (1976). Gr oup methods for reducing racial prejudice and discrimination. Psychological Reports 39, 1259-1268. Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Be yond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in

PAGE 122

113 contact: The psychology of desegregation (p. 281-302). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Broman, C. L., Mavaddat, R., & Hsu, S. ( 2000). The experience and consequences of perceived racial discrimination: A study of African-Americans. Journal of Black Psychology 26, 165-180. Brown v. Board of Eduction of Topeka 98F. Supp. 797 (1951), 347 U.S. 483 (1954), 349 U.S. 294 (1955). Bullard, S. (1996). Teaching tolerance: Raising open-minded empathic children. New York: Doubleday. Byers, B., & Crider, B. (2002). Hate crimes against the Amish: A qualitative analysis of bias motivation using routine activities theory. Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 115-148. Byrnes, D. A., & Kiger, G. (1988). Contemporary measures of attitudes toward Blacks. Educational and Psychological Measurement 48, 107-118. Byrnes, D. A., & Kiger, G. (1990). The e ffect of a prejudice-reduction simulation on attitude change. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 20, 341-356. Byrnes, D. A., & Kiger, G. (1992). Social f actors and responses to racial discrimination. Journal of Psychology 126, 631-638. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing Groupwork: Strategies for Heterogeneous Classrooms (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1997) Working for Equality in Heterogeneous Classroom: Sociological Theory in Practice, New York: Teachers College Press.

PAGE 123

114 Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences New York: Academic Press. Cooper, R. (1996). Detracking in an ur ban California high school: Improving the schooling experiences of African-American students Journal of Negro Education 65, 190-208. Cozzarelli, C., & Karafa, J. A. (1998). Cultu ral estrangement and terror management theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24, 253-267. Dei, G. J. (1996). Anti-racism education: Theory and practice Halifax, Canada: Fernwood. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1998). On the nature of contem porary prejudice: The causes, consequences, and challenges of aver sive racism. In J. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting racism: The problem and the response (pp. 3-32), Newbury Park, CA: Sage DuBois, W.E.B. (1969). The souls of Black folk New York: Signet (Original work published 1903). Duckitt, J. (1992). The social psychology of prejudice New York: Praeger. Ellison, C. G., & Powers, D. A. (1994). The contact hypothesis and racial attitudes among Black Americans. Social Science Quarterly 75, 385-400. Finlay, K., & Stephan, W. G. (2000). Impr oving intergroup relations: The effects of empathy on racial attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30, 1720-1737. Fuhr, E. (1996). Promoting tolerance thr ough multicultural educa tion. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED411188).

PAGE 124

115 Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.). New York: Longman. Grosskurth, P. (1991, October 24). A new psychology of women. The New York Review of Books, 25-32. Hallinan, M. T., & Teixeira, R. A. (1987). St udents’ interracial friendships: Individual characteristics, structural e ffects and racial differences. American Journal of Education, 95, 563-583. Hamilton, D. L., & Trolier, T. K. (1986). St ereotypes and stereotyping: An overview of the cognitive approach. In J. F. D ovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism, (pp. 127-158). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Hamilton, S. F., & Fenzel, L. M. (1988) The impact of volunteer experience on adolescent social development: Evidence of program effects. Journal of Adolescent Research 3, 65-80. Hardcastle, B. (1992). Gender equity in the classroom. In D. A. Byrnes & G. Kiger (Eds.), Common Bonds: Anti-bias teac hing in a diverse society (pp. 87-104). Wheaton, MD: Association for Childhood Education International. Hart, D., & Fegley, S. (1995). Prosocial behavi or and caring in adolescence: Relations to self-understanding and social judgment. Child Development 66, 1346-1359. Hebl, M. R., Foster, J. B., Mannix, L. M ., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). Formal and interpersonal discrimination: A field study of bias toward homosexual applicants. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 28, p 815-825.

PAGE 125

116 Heller, C., & Hawkins, J. A. (1994). Teachi ng tolerance: Notes from the front line. Teachers College Record 95, 337-368. Henrich, C., Blatt, S., Kuperminc, G., Soha r, A., & Leadbeater, B. (2001). Level of interpersonal concerns and social functio ning in early adolescent boys and girls. Journal of Personality Assessment, 76, 48-67. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1981). Effects of cooperative and indi vidualistic learning experience on interethnic interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology 73, 454-459. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1982). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning expe riences on cross-ethnic in teraction and friendships. Journal of Social Psychology 118, 47-58. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1985). Relations hips between Black and White students in intergroup cooperation and competition. Journal of Social Psychology 125, 421-428. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2000). The th ree C’s of reduci ng prejudice and discrimination. In S. Oskamp (Ed.) Reducing prejudice and discrimination. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kluegel, J. R., & Bobo, L. (1993) Opposition to race-targeting. American Sociological Review 58, 443-464.

PAGE 126

117 Kinder, D., & Sanders, L. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Litcher, J. H., & Johnson, D. W. (1969). Ch anges in attitudes toward Negroes of White elementary school students after use of multiethnic readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 60, 148-152. Litcher, J. H., Johnson, D. W., & Ryan, F. L. (1973). Use of pictures of multiethnic interaction to change atti tudes of White elementary school students towards Blacks. Psychological Reports 33, 367-372. Lopez-Reyna, N. A. (1997). The relation of interactions a nd story quality among Mexican American and Anglo American students with learning disabilities. Exceptionality, 7, 245-261. McConahay, J. G. (1986). Modern racism, ambiva lence, and the modern racism scale. In Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism, (p. 91-125). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. McGregor, J. (1993). Effectiveness of role-p laying and anti-racist teaching in reducing student prejudice. Journal of Educational Research 86, 215-226. McWhirter, J., Paluch, R. & Ohm, R. (1988) Anytown: A human relations experience. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work 13, 117-123. Moore, C. W., & Allen, J. P. (1996). The effects of volunteering on the young volunteer. Journal of Primary Prevention 17, 231-258.

PAGE 127

118 Morelli, P.T., & Spencer, M. S. (2000). Use of multicultural and an ti-racist education: Research informed inter-disciplinary social work practice. Social Work 45, 166175. National Conference for Community a nd Justice. (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003). Report to the Children’s Board and Juvenile Welfare Board: Adolescents’ knowledge of discriminatory terms and feelings of so cial responsibility before and after attending the Anytown progr am. Unpublished manuscript. National Conference for Community and Ju stice. (2002). Anytown program manual. Unpublished manuscript. Niemi, R. G., Hepburn, M. A., & Chapma n, C. (2000). Community service by high school students: A cure for civic ills? Political Behavior 22, 45-69. Ohm, R. (1987). Constructing and reconstructing social distance attitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe. Oskamp, S. (2000). Reducing prejudice and discrimination. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Pancer, M. (1997). Youth I nventory of Involvement. Pancer, M. (1997). Youth Social Responsibility Scale. Pancer, M. S., Pratt, M., & Hunsberger, B. (1998). The development of social responsibility in adolescence, Paper presented at the Meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA. Pancer, M. S., Pratt, M., & Hunsberger, B. (2000). The roots of community and political involvement in Canadian Youth. Paper presented at the XVI Biennial Meeting of

PAGE 128

119 the International Society for the Stud y of Behavioral Development, Beijing, China. Peters, W. (Producer & Director). (1971). The eye of the storm. (Film). New York: American Broadcasting Company. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology 49, 6585. Sardo-Brown, D., & Hershey, M. (1995). A study of teachers’ and students’ multicultural attitudes before and after the use of an integrated multi-cultural lesson plan. Journal of Instructional Psychology 22, 259-276. Schuman, H., Steeh, C., Bobo, L., & Krysan, M. (1997). Racial Attitudes in America: Trends and Interpretations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sears, D. O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P.A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Profiles in controversy, (p. 53-84). New York: Plenum. Sigelman, L., & Welch, S. (1993). The cont act hypothesis revisited: Black-White interaction and positive racial attitudes. Social Forces 71, 781-795. Slaby, R. G. (1999). Above prejudice and be yond tolerance: A bystander approach to reducing prejudice and improving intergr oup relations. Newton, MA: Final report to Carnegie Foundation. Slavin, R. E. (1995a). Cooperative learning a nd intergroup relations. In J. Banks and C. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (p. 628-634), New York: McMillan.

PAGE 129

120 Slavin, R. E. (1995b). The cooperative el ementary school: Effects on students’ achievement, attitudes, and social relations. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 321-351. Slavin, R. E. (1999). Improving intergroup re lations: Lessons learned from cooperative learning programs. Journal of Social Issues 55, 647-663. Slavin, R. E., & Cooper, R. (1999). Improving intergroup relations: Le ssons learned from cooperative learning programs Journal of Social Issues 55, 647-663. Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1979). School practices that impr ove race relations. American Educational Research Journal, 16, 169-180. Sleeter, C. E. (1996). Multicultural Education as Social Activism. New York: State University of New York Press. Stephan, W. (1978). School desegregation: An evaluation of predictions made in Brown v. Board of Education Psychological Bulletin 85, 217-238. Stephan, W. G. (1999). Improving intergroup relations in the schools New York: Columbia Teachers College Press. Stephan, W. G., & Finlay, K. (1999). The role of empathy in improving intergroup relations Journal of Social Issues 55, 729-743. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Jounal of Social Issues 41, 157-175. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An inte grated threat theory of prejudice. In W. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (p. 23-45), New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

PAGE 130

121 Stevens, J. (1996). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Stewart, L. D., & Perlow, R. (2002). Applican t race, job status, and racial attitude as predictors of employment discrimination. Journal of Business & Psychology 16, 259-275. Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (1989). Using Multivariate Statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row. Thompson, L. (1990). Negotiation behavior and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psychological Bulletin 108, 515-532. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (2001, November 19). Hate crime statistics 2000. In Uniform Crime Report Retrieved February 17, 2003, from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_00/hate00.pdf Weigel, R. H., Wiser, P. L., & Cook, S. W. (1975) The impact of cooperative learning experience on cross-ethnic relations and attitudes. Journal of Social Issues 31, 219-244. Weiner, M. J., & Wright, F. E. (1973). E ffects of undergoing arbi trary discrimination upon subsequent attitudes toward a minority group. Journal of Applied Psychology 3, 94-102. Yates, M. & Youniss, J. (1996). Community service and political-m oral identity in adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence 6, 271-284. Yates, M. (1999). Community service and poli tical-moral discussions among adolescents: A study of a mandatory school-based progr am in the United States. In M.

PAGE 131

122 Yates & J. Youniss (Eds.). (1996). Roots of civic identity: in ternational perspectives on community service and activism in youth, (pp. 16-31), Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Yawkey, T. D. (1973). Attitudes toward Black Americans held by rural and urban White early childhood subjects based upon multiethnic social studies materials. Journal of Negro Education 42, 164-169.

PAGE 132

123 Appendices

PAGE 133

124 Appendix A: Anytown Daily Schedule Time General Activity Sunday Monday Tuesday 7:45 Flag Raising -------Flag Raising Flag Raising 8:00 Breakfast -------Breakfast Breakfast 8:30 Staff meeting -------Staff meeting Staff meeting 9:00 Songfest ------Songfest Songfest 10:00 Discussion Groups -------Know Yourself Know Your Friends 12:00 Lunch -------Lunch Lunch 1:00 Dorm Meetings -------Dorm Meetings Dorm Meetings 1:30 Afternoon workshop 1 Welcome & Icebreakers Holocaust, Middle Passage Bosnia Disability (begins during lunch) 4:00 Afternoon workshop 2 Dorm Assignments Interfaith Cultural Identity 5:45 Flag Lowering Flag Lowering Flag Lowering Flag Lowering 6:00 Dinner Dinner Dinner Dinner 7:00 Evening Program Great Debate Racial Identity Stereotype Racism Gender & Healthy Relationships 9:45 Chilling with the Hits Chilling with the Hits Chilling with the Hits Chilling with the Hits 10:00 Closing Circle Closing Circle Closing Circle Closing Circle 10:30 Return to Dorms Return to Dorms Return to Dorms Return to Dorms 11:00 Lights Out Lights Out Lights Out Lights Out

PAGE 134

125 Appendix A: (Continued) Time General Activity Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 7:45 Flag Raising Flag Raising Flag Raising Flag Raising Flag Raising 8:00 Breakfast Breakfast Br eakfast Breakfast Breakfast 8:30 Staff meeting Staff meeting Sta ff meeting Staff mee ting Staff meeting 9:00 Songfest Songfest Songfest Songfest Songfest 10:00 Discussion Groups Know Your Family Large Group Separation Know Your Community Reentry Group Pictures 12:00 Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch 1:00 Dorm Meetings Dorm Meetings Dorm Meetings Dorm Meetings Return to Communities 1:30 Afternoon workshop 1 Heterosexism Facilitating Dialogue Privilege & Fabric -------4:00 Afternoon workshop 2 Practice for Culture Night Practice for Talent Night Volunteerism Advocacy Activism -------5:45 Flag Lowering Flag Lowering Flag Lowering Flag Lowering -------6:00 Dinner Dinner Dinner Dinner -------7:00 Evening Program Culture Night Talent Night & Bonfire Celebration Raffle Pin ceremony -------9:45 Chilling with the Hits Chilling with the Hits Chilling with the Hits Chilling with the Hits -------10:00 Closing Circle Closing Circle Cl osing Circle Closing Circle -------10:30 Return to Dorms Return to Dorms Return to Dorms Return to Dorms -------11:00 Lights Out Lights Out Lights Out Lights Out -------

PAGE 135

126 Appendix B: Anytown Program Objectives Statement of Anytown Program Objectives 1.) To demonstrate to delegates the effect s prejudice and discrimination have on individuals within our society. 2.) To encourage delegates to achieve greater understanding and respect for themselves through interaction with pe rsons of different ethnic origins. 3.) To enable delegates to develop the necessary critical thinking skills to solve both individual and group problems in human relations. 4.) To help delegates understand and accept th eir responsibilities as citizens, as well as their entitlements. 5.) To introduce delegates to gl obal issues which are inte rconnected, transcending the local focus of their families, schools, and neighborhoods, thereby, beginning their process of becoming “ citizens of the world. ”

PAGE 136

127 Appendix C: Pre Survey / Follow-Up Survey

PAGE 137

128 Appendix C: (Continued)

PAGE 138

129 Appendix C: (Continued)

PAGE 139

130 Appendix C: (Continued)

PAGE 140

131 Appendix D: Post Survey

PAGE 141

132 Appendix D: (Continued)

PAGE 142

133 Appendix D: (Continued)

PAGE 143

134 Appendix E: Parent Survey

PAGE 144

135 Appendix E: (Continued)

PAGE 145

136 Appendix E: (Continued)

PAGE 146

Appendix F: Definitions of Discriminatory Terms Directions : Please select the word that goes with the definition. 1. Pre-judging a person or group. An attitude. A. Discrimination B. Prejudice C. Racism D. Ageism 2. Behaving differently toward an individual or group because of prejudice. A. Discrimination B. Prejudice C. Stereotype D. Ageism 3. Putting all members of a group into the same category. A. Homophobia B. Stereotype C. Ageism D. Anti-Semitism 4. Prejudice against a group of people based on their inherited physical characteristics. A. Discrimination B. Prejudice C. Racism D. Ageism 5. Prejudice based on gender. A. Prejudice B. Stereotype C. Ageism D. Sexism 6. Fear and hatred of gays and lesbians or fear of being associated with them. A. Discrimination B. Prejudice C. Racism D. Homophobia 7. Prejudice based on age. A. Stereotype B. Sexism C. Ageism D. Anti-Semitism 8. Hatred or prejudice of Jews. A. Stereotype B. Sexism C. Ageism D. Anti-Semitism

PAGE 147

138 Appendix G: Youth Diversity Acceptance Scale Please consider each statement and then circle the response that reflects how much you agree or disagree according to the following scale: SA = Strongly Agree (SA) A = Agree D = Disagree SD = Str ongly Disagree (SD) 1. I have contact with people who speak more than one language. SA A D SD 2. I attend events where I get to know people from different racial backgrounds. SA A D SD 3. I participate in activities involving pe ople with disabilities. SA A D SD 4. I know people from different ethnic backgrounds. SA A D SD 5. During my free time, I join in activities that allow me to meet new people. SA A D SD 6. R I don’t have anything in common with people who have a different race than I do. SA A D SD 7. I have friends who are homosexual. SA A D SD 8. I have friends whose backgrounds (e.g., race, ability level, sexual orientation, etc.) are different from mine. SA A D SD 9. R I get angry when other people (who speak only a foreign language) can’t understand me. SA A D SD 10. When students from backgrounds different from my own are new to my school, I do things to make them feel welcome. SA A D SD 11. I participate in cultural activities (s pecial food, music, customs) that are different from my own. SA A D SD 12 R Everyone in our country should only speak English. SA A D SD R = Reverse Scored

PAGE 148

139 Appendix H: Youth Social Competence Scale Please consider each statement and then circle the response that reflects how much you agree or disagree according to the following scale: SA = Strongly Agree (SA) A = Agree D = Disagree SD = Str ongly Disagree (SD) 1. When I walk through the halls at school, I smile and say hello to people I don’t know. SA A D SD 2. R When I am around people with disabilities, I say and do the wrong things. SA A D SD 3. When people say things I disagree with, I politely share my opinion. SA A D SD 4. When I get upset with someone, I try to work it out by talking it over and figuring out the problem. SA A D SD 5. R I am not sure how to act in many social situations. SA A D SD 6. I have leadership skills. SA A D SD 7. It is easy for me to kindly talk to people I have just met. SA A D SD 8. It is easy for me to respectfully st and up for the things I believe in. SA A D SD 9. R I don’t make friends with some people, because my current friends would not approve. SA A D SD 10. It is easy for me to talk in front of a large audience. SA A D SD 11. I am confident in social situations. SA A D SD 12. I am able to get along well with others in many different situations. SA A D SD 13. I am able to control my emotions when I am having a problem with someone. SA A D SD 14. R I worry about what other people think about me. SA A D SD R = Reverse Scored

PAGE 149

140 Appendix I: Youth Social Responsibility Scale Please consider each statement and then circle the response that reflects how much you agree or disagree according to the following scale. S elect N = Neutral to indicate that you do not have a strong opinion on th is topic in either direction. SA = Strongly Agree (SA) A = Agree D = Disagree SD = Str ongly Disagree (SD) 1. People in their teens should know about how their country is governed, even if they’re too young to vote. SA A D SD 2. R Giving money to the poor just makes them more dependent. SA A D SD 3. Everyone should volunteer some time for the good of their community. SA A D SD 4. People have a responsibility to help those who are less well off than themselves. SA A D SD 5. Students should take a greater interest in the activities of their student council or stud ent government. SA A D SD 6. R We ought to worry about our own country first and let the rest of the world take care of itself. SA A D SD 7. R There is not much that young people can do to solve major social problems like racism and environmental pollution. SA A D SD 8. It’s important for people to speak out when an injustice has occurred. SA A D SD 9. People who are well off should share their wealth by giving generously to charity. SA A D SD 10. R In hard times, people have to look out for themselves. SA A D SD 11. We have a responsibility to future generations to keep the environment healthy. SA A D SD 12. R There are too many sick and needy pe ople around the world to be able to help them all. SA A D SD 13. R A lot of people who have problems just don’t want to be helped. SA A D SD 14. Young people have an important role to play in making the world a better place. SA A D SD 15. R Being involved in school clubs and organizations is a waste of time. SA A D SD 16. It is important for people to know what is going on in their communities. SA A D SD 17. R People in their teens can’t vote, so th ere is not really any reason for them to care about politics and government. SA A D SD 18. It’s important for people to know what’s going on in the world. SA A D SD 19. R Teenagers should just enjoy themselves and not worry about things like poverty and the environment. SA A D SD 20. There is a lot that young people can do to make their community a better place to live. SA A D SD 21. R There is no point in getting involved in local issues and organizations if that kind of thing doesn’t really interest you. SA A D SD 22. More young people should become active in political parties and organizations. SA A D SD 23. R People who have worked hard to make a decent living shouldn’t have to help those who haven’t. SA A D SD

PAGE 150

141 Appendix I: (Continued) 24. R Schools should stick to the basics and not spend so much time trying to teach students about mo ral or social issues. SA A D SD 25. People should help one another without expecting to get paid or rewarded for it. SA A D SD 26. R Political matters aren’t relevant to people who are below the voting age. SA A D SD 27. By helping others, parents set an important example for their children. SA A D SD 28. R Our country would be a lot better if we didn’t have so many elections and people didn’t have to vote so often. SA A D SD 29. Helping others gives a person a tremendous feeling of accomplishment. SA A D SD R = Reverse scored

PAGE 151

142 Appendix J: Youth Inve ntory of Involvement Directions: The following is a list of school, co mmunity, and political activities that people can get involved in. For each of these activities, please use the following scale to indicate whether in the last three months if : 0 = you NEVER did this 1 = you did this ONCE or TWICE 2 = you did this a FEW times 3 = you did this a FAIR BIT 4 = you did this A LOT PLEASE CIRCLE ONLY ONE RESPONSE. 1. Visited or helped out people who were sick. 0 1 2 3 4 2. Took care of other families’ children (on an unpaid basis). 0 1 2 3 4 3. Participated in a church-connected group. 0 1 2 3 4 4. Participated in or helped a charity organization. 0 1 2 3 4 5. Participated in an ethnic club or organization. 0 1 2 3 4 6. Participated in a political party, club or organization. 0 1 2 3 4 7. Participated in a social or cultural group or organization. 0 1 2 3 4 8. Participated in a school academic club or team. 0 1 2 3 4 9. Participated in a sports team or club. 0 1 2 3 4 10. Led or helped out with a children’s group or club. 0 1 2 3 4 11. Helped with a fund-raising project. 0 1 2 3 4 12. Helped organize neighborhood or community events.(e.g., carnivals hot dog days, potluck dinners) 0 1 2 3 4 13. Helped prepare and make verbal and written presentation to organizations, agencies, conferences, or politicians. 0 1 2 3 4 14. Did things to help improve your neighborhood (e.g., helped clean neighborhood). 0 1 2 3 4 15. Gave help (e.g., money, food, clothing, rides) to friends or classmates who needed it. 0 1 2 3 4 16. Served as a member of an organizi ng committee or board for a school club or organization. 0 1 2 3 4 17. Wrote a letter to a school or community newspaper or publication. 0 1 2 3 4 18. Signed a petition. 0 1 2 3 4 19. Attended a demonstration. 0 1 2 3 4 20. Collected signatures for a petition drive. 0 1 2 3 4 21. Contacted a public official (phone or mail) to tell him/her how you felt about a particular issue. 0 1 2 3 4 22. Joined in a protest march, meeting, or demonstration. 0 1 2 3 4 23. Got information about community services from a local community information center. 0 1 2 3 4 24. Volunteered at a school event or function. 0 1 2 3 4 25. Helped people who were new to your country. 0 1 2 3 4 26. Gave money to a cause. 0 1 2 3 4 27. Worked on a political campaign. 0 1 2 3 4 28. Ran for a position in student government. 0 1 2 3 4

PAGE 152

143 Appendix J: (Continued) 29. Participated in a discussion about a social or political issue. 0 1 2 3 4 30. Volunteered with a commun ity service organization. 0 1 2 3 4

PAGE 153

144 Appendix K: Parental Perceptions of Adol escent’s Social Competence Questionnaire Directions: Please consider each statement carefully in reference to your adolescent child who was selected to participate in this st udy. Please be as honest as possible. Your responses are anonymous. Circle the response that reflects how much you believe your child has displayed each characteris tic according to the following scale: SA = Strongly Agree (SA) A = Agree D = Disagree SD = Str ongly Disagree (SD) My child…… 1. Cooperates well with others in one or more settings (i.e., home, school, extra-curricular activities). SA A D SD 2. Initiates conversations with others. SA A D SD 3. R Ignores requests for assistance from others (i.e., family and friends). SA A D SD 4. Speaks comfortably in front of an audience. SA A D SD 5. R Allows friends to influence his or her decisions. SA A D SD 6. Apologizes to others when appropriate. SA A D SD 7. Interacts easily with members of groups different from his/her own (i.e., different race, ethnicity). SA A D SD 8. Takes on the responsibility of introducing people to one another in group situations. SA A D SD 9. R Is reprimanded for disciplinary problems in one or more settings (i.e., home, school, extra-curricular activities). SA A D SD 10. Organizes events and activities in one or more settings (i.e., home, school, extra-curricular activities). SA A D SD 11. Has maintained positive friendships over an extended period of time. SA A D SD 12. Is sympathetic to family and friends in times of need. SA A D SD 13. R Resolves problems using aggression (either verbal or physical). SA A D SD 14. Is viewed as a leader by others in one or more settings (i.e., home, school, extra-curricular activities). SA A D SD 15. Is confident in social situations. SA A D SD 16. R Is dissatisfied with his/he r friendships. SA A D SD 17. Is generally happy with himself / herself SA A D SD 18. Joins into activities that will allow him/her to meet new people SA A D SD 19. R Is often described as shy. SA A D SD 20. Demonstrates social skills that help him/her develop and maintain positive relationships over time. SA A D SD

PAGE 154

145 Appendix L: Youth Inventory of In volvement – Parental Perceptions Directions: The following is a list of school, co mmunity, and political activities that people can get involved in. For each of these activities, please use the following scale to indicate whether in the last three months if your child : 0 = NEVER did this or Unsure 1 = did this ONCE or TWICE 2 = did this a FEW times 3 = did this a FAIR BIT 4 = did this A LOT PLEASE CIRCLE ONLY ONE RE SPONSE. 1. Visited or helped out people who were sick. 0 1 2 3 4 2. Took care of other families’ children (on an unpaid basis). 0 1 2 3 4 3. Participated in a church-connected group. 0 1 2 3 4 4. Participated in or helped a charity organization. 0 1 2 3 4 5. Participated in an ethnic club or organization. 0 1 2 3 4 6. Participated in a political party, club or organization. 0 1 2 3 4 7. Participated in a social or cultural group or organization. 0 1 2 3 4 8. Participated in a school academic club or team. 0 1 2 3 4 9. Participated in a sports team or club. 0 1 2 3 4 10. Led or helped out with a children’s group or club. 0 1 2 3 4 11. Helped with a fund-raising project. 0 1 2 3 4 12. Helped organize neighborhood or community events. (e.g., carnivals hot dog days, potluck dinners) 0 1 2 3 4 13. Helped prepare and make verbal and written presentation to organizations, agencies, conferences, or politicians. 0 1 2 3 4 14. Did things to help improve your neighborhood (e.g., helped clean neighborhood). 0 1 2 3 4 15. Gave help (e.g., money, food, clothing, rides) to friends or classmates who needed it. 0 1 2 3 4 16. Served as a member of an organizi ng committee or board for a school club or organization. 0 1 2 3 4 17. Wrote a letter to a school or community newspaper or publication. 0 1 2 3 4 18. Signed a petition. 0 1 2 3 4 19. Attended a demonstration. 0 1 2 3 4 20. Collected signatures for a petition drive. 0 1 2 3 4 21. Contacted a public official (phone or mail) to tell him/her how you felt about a particular issue. 0 1 2 3 4 22. Joined in a protest march, meeting, or demonstration. 0 1 2 3 4 23. Got information about community services from a local community information center. 0 1 2 3 4 24. Volunteered at a school event or function. 0 1 2 3 4 25. Helped people who were new to your country. 0 1 2 3 4 26. Gave money to a cause. 0 1 2 3 4

PAGE 155

146 Appendix L: (Continued) 27. Worked on a political campaign. 0 1 2 3 4 28. Ran for a position in student government. 0 1 2 3 4 29. Participated in a discussion about a social or political issue. 0 1 2 3 4 30. Volunteered with a commun ity service organization. 0 1 2 3 4

PAGE 156

147 Appendix M: Experimental Group Assent Letter Anytown Research Project Parent and Child Participant Information The following information is being presented to help you decide whether or not you and your child want to participate in a minimal risk rese arch study. Please read this carefully. If you elect to participate in this study, please return the enclosed index card with your name, address, and phone number for a chance to win a $50 gift certificate to a local mall. The index card will be separated from your returned survey to maintain confidentiality and a random drawing will be held two weeks after the mailing/postmar k date. Winners will be contacted by the researcher. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to analyze the outcomes of the Anytown program. The National Conference for Community and Justic e (NCCJ) sponsors the Anytown program. Anytown is a free week long program that provid es opportunities for adolescents to share ideas about society, improve their communication skills, and participate in various experiential activities. Surveys are being requested from students who attended Anytown and their parents as well as students who demonstrated an interest in att ending Anytown, but did not attend, and their parents. PROCEDURES/DURATION: You and your child are being asked to complete the enclosed surveys independently and without the aid of reso urces. The enclosed parent survey will take approximately 10 minutes to complete and asks questions about your child. If you return the survey, you will be sent an other survey in three months, it also will take approximately 10 minutes to complete, and you will be eligible for another opportunity to win a $50 prize. The adolescent survey asks questions about thei r attitudes and behaviors in many areas. If you consent for your child to participate, then he/she will be asked to complete a pre-survey immediately prior to the start of the activities at Anytown and a post-survey on the last day of the program. Your child will be sent another survey approxim ately 3 months later. Each survey takes approximately 20 minutes to complete. The approximate total time your child will be requested to participate in this research project is 60 minutes Also, each time your child returns a survey, his/her name will be entered into a drawing for a $50 gift certificate to a local mall. VOLUNTARY; Your decision to allow your child to part icipate in this research study as well as your child’s decision to participate is complete ly voluntary. You and your child are free to participate in this research study or to withdraw at any time without any penalty. If you choose not to allow your child to participate please cont act Eileen Lyons at 727-5680533 so that he/she is not asked to complete any surveys during the pr ogram. If you or your child decides not to participate, there will be no penalty or loss of benefit s that you or your child is entitled to receive (e.g., your child can still participate in the Anytown pr ogram if they decide not to participate in this research project.) Additionally, this Parent and Child Participant information form will be read aloud at Anytown to remind them that their participation is voluntary. Returning the surveys to the researcher will indi cate that you agreed to participate. If a phone call is not received, then it will be und erstood that you agreed t hat your child could participate. If your child completes and returns the survey, it will be understood that he/she consented to participate. However, if the surveys are not returned, then it will be understoo d that you and/or your child elected not to participate in this research project. BENEFITS/RISKS: Your participation will be greatly appreciated and will benefit the NCCJ, the Anytown program, and provide much needed informat ion regarding the efficacy of the Anytown program. Additionally, although there are no known ri sks associated with this study, the questions on the survey do ask for personally held attitudes and behaviors. Therefore your responses will be kept confidential and names will not be written on or associated with t he surveys in any way. Personal codes will be used to ensure a certain level of anonymity is maintained and the

PAGE 157

148 Appendix M: (Continued) researcher will be the only person who can link a personal code to an actual name. At the completion of the project, all records will be de stroyed that link names to personal codes. Your privacy and research records will be kept conf idential to the extent of the law. Authorized research personnel, employees of the Department of Health and Human Services, and the USF Institutional Review Board may inspect the records from this research project. If you have questions about your rights as a person who is taking part in a research study, you may contact the Division of Research Compliance of the University of South Florida at (813) 9745638. _________________________ __________________________ Eileen Lyons, Ed.S. Harold R. Kellar Graduate Student Department Chairperson Psychological and Social Foundations Psychological and Social Foundations University of South Florida University of South Florida 727-568-0533 813-974-6709

PAGE 158

149 Appendix N – Control Group Assent Letter Anytown Research Project Parent and Child Participant Information The following information is being presented to help you decide whether or not you and your child want to participate in a minimal risk rese arch study. Please read this carefully. If you elect to participate in this study, please return the enclosed index card with your name, address, and phone number for a chance to win a $50 gift certificate to a local shopping mall. The index card will be separated from your returned survey to maintain confidentiality and a random drawing will be held two weeks after the mailing/po stmark date. Winners will be contacted by the researcher. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to analyze the outcomes of the Anytown program. The National Conference for Community and Justic e (NCCJ) sponsors the Anytown program. Anytown is a free week long program that provid es opportunities for adolescents to share ideas about society, improve their communication skills, and participate in various experiential activities. Surveys are being requested from studen ts who attended Anytown and students who demonstrated an interest in attending Anytown, but he/she did not attend. PROCEDURES/DURATION: You and your child are being asked to complete the enclosed surveys independently and without the aid of reso urces. The enclosed parent survey will take approximately 10 minutes to complete and asks questions about your child. If you return the survey, you will be sent an other survey in three months, it also will take approximately 10 minutes to complete, and you will be eligible for another opportunity to win a $50 prize. The adolescent survey asks questions about their own attitudes and behaviors in many areas. If your child returns the survey, he/she will be s ent another survey approximately two weeks and three months later. Each survey takes approx imately 20 minutes to complete. The adolescents total time involved in this rese arch project will be approximately 60 minutes. Also, each time your child returns a survey, his/her name will be enter ed into a drawing for a $50 gift certificate to a local shopping mall. VOLUNTARY; Your decision to allow your child to part icipate in this research study as well as your child’s decision to participate is complete ly voluntary. You and your child are free to participate in this research study or to withdraw at any time without any penalty. If you choose not to allow your child to participate or if you remove your child from the study, there will be no penalty or loss of benefits that you or your child are entitled to receive (e.g., your child can still participate in the Anytown program if they decide not to participate. Returning the surveys to the researcher indicate that you agreed to part icipate, you gave permission for your child to participate, and your child agreed to participate. If the surveys are not returned, then it will be understood that you elected not to participate in this research project. BENEFITS/RISKS: Your participation will be greatly appreciated and will benefit the NCCJ, the Anytown program, and provide much needed informat ion regarding the efficacy of the Anytown program. Additionally, although there are no known ri sks associated with this study, the questions on the survey do ask for personally held attitudes and behaviors. Therefore your responses will be kept confidential and names will not be written on or associated with t he surveys in any way. Personal codes will be used to ensure a certain level of anonymity is maintained and the researcher will be the only person who can link a personal code to an actual name. At the completion of the project, all records will be de stroyed that link names to personal codes. Your privacy and research records will be kept conf idential to the extent of the law. Authorized research personnel, employees of the Department of Health and Human Services, and the USF Institutional Review Board may inspect the records from this research project.

PAGE 159

150 Appendix N: (Continued) If you have questions about your rights as a person who is taking part in a research study, you may contact the primary investigator, Eileen Lyon s at 727-568-0533 or the Division of Research Compliance of the University of South Florida at (813) 974-5638. _________________________ __________________________ Eileen Lyons, Ed.S. Harold R. Kellar Graduate Student Department Chairperson Psychological and Social Foundations Psychological and Social Foundations University of South Florida University of South Florida 727-568-0533 813-974-6709

PAGE 160

About the Author Eileen Lyons received a B achelor’s Degree in Psychology from the University of Illinois in 1992, an M.S. in School Psychology from Governor’s State University in 1995, and an Educational Specialist Degree from the University of South Florida in 2001 where she continued on for a Ph.D. Ms. Lyons has worked in Illinois, Iowa, and Florida and actively volunteers for the National Conference for Co mmunity and Justice. While in the Ph.D. program, Ms. Lyons wa s very involved at the University as well as in her role as a school psychologist for a local schoo l district. At USF, Ms. Lyons founded the School Psychology Student Associ ation, conducted research, and presented at conferences on school reform, consultation, and tolerance. She also served as the treasurer for the Iowa School Psychology Asso ciation. For the school district, Ms. Lyons is working towards enhancing the assessmen t and intervention practices used by the district psychologists.